f  «*  <;'/,.vi*.<i>o- 


HE  CRISIS  IN  THE 
GERMAN 
CIAL-DEMOCRACY 

(Th'3  "Junius"  Pamphlet) 

By 
ROSA  LUXEMBURG 


Price 


25   Cents 


NEW  YORK 

THE  SOCIALIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 

24^    'JSth  STREET,  BROOKLYN.  N.  Y. 

1919 


UCSB   LIBRAE 


The  Crisis  in  the 

German 
Social  -  Democracy 

(The  "Junius"  Pamphlet) 

By  Rosa  Luxemburg 


NEW  YORK 

The  Socialist  Publication  Society 
243— 55th  St.,  Brooklyn.  N.Y. 

1910 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/crisisingermansoOOIuxeiala 


PREFACE 

This  is  a  reprint  of  a  book  which,  in  the  former  edition, 
also  published  by  us,  was  wrongly  attributed  to  three 
authors :  Karl  Liebknecht,  Franz  Mehring,  and  Rosa  Lux- 
emburg. We  are  now  in  possession  of  conclusive  informa- 
tion that  Rosa  Luxemburg  is  the  sole  author.  Our  origin- 
ally assigning  it  to  the  three  names  above  mentioned  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  authorship  had  been  ascribed  to  the 
"Spartacus  Group,"  and,  following  the  general  consensus 
of  the  German  Socialist  press,  we  repeated  the  statement 
that  the  authorship  lay  with  the  entire  group. 

Accordingly,  it  is  Comrade  Rosa  Luxemburg's  picture 
which  now  appears  as  frontispiece,  instead  of  Karl  Lieb- 
knecht's.     No  changes  have  been  made  in  the  text  itself. 

The  Socialist  Publication  Society. 


THE  CRISIS  IN  THE  GERMAN 
SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  scene  has  thoroughly  changed.  The  six  weeks'  march  to 
Paris  has  become  a  world  drama.  Mass  murder  has  become  a 
monotonous  task,  and  yet  the  final  solution  is  not  one  step  nearer. 
Capitalist  rule  is  caught  in  its  own  trap,  and  cannot  ban  the  spirit 
that  it  has  invoked. 

Gone  is  the  first  mad  delirium.  Gone  are  the  patriotic  street 
demonstrations,  the  chase  after  suspicious  looking  automobiles,  the 
false  telegrams,  the  cholera-poisoned  wells.  Gone,  the  mad 
stories  of  Russian  students  who  hurl  bombs  from  every  bridge 
of  Berlin,  or  Frenchmen  flying  over  Nuremberg;  gone  the 
excesses  of  a  spy-hunting  populace,  the  singing  throngs,  the 
coffee-shops  with  their  patriotic  songs;  gone  the  violent  mobs, 
ready  to  denounce,  ready  to  persecute  women,  ready  to  whip 
themselves  into  a  delirious  frenzy  over  every  wild  rumor;  gone 
the  atmosphere  of  ritual  murder,  the  Kishineff  air  that  left  the 
policeman  at  the  corner  as  the  only  remaining  representative  of 
himian  dignity. 

The  show  is  over.  The  curtain  has  f  dlen  on  trains  filled  with 
reservists,  as  they  pull  out  amid  the  joyous  cries  of  enthusiastic 
maidens.  We  no  longer  see  their  laughing  faces,  smiling  cheerily 
from  the  train  windows  upon  a  war-mad  population.  Quietly  they 
trot  through  the  streets,  with  their  sacks  upon  their  shoulders. 
And  the  public,  with  a  fretful  face,  goes  about  its  daily  task. 

Into  the  disillusioned  atmosphere  of  pale  daylight  there  rings 
a  different  chorus ;  the  hoarse  croak  of  the  hawks  and  hyenas  of 
the  battlefield.  Ten  thousand  tents,  guaranteed  according  to 
specifications,  100,000  kilo  of  bacon,  cocoa  powder,  coffee  sub- 
stitute, cash  *on  immediate  delivery.     Shrapnell,  drills,  ammuni- 


8  THE  CRISIS 

tion  bags,  marriage  bureaus  for  war  widows,  leather  belts,  war 
orders— only  serious  propositions  considered.  And  the  cannon 
fodder  that  was  loaded  upon  the  trains  in  August  and  September 
is  rotting  on  the  battlefields  of  Belgium  and  the  Vosges,  while 
profits  are  springing,  like  weeds,  from  the  fields  of  the  dead. 

Business  is  flourishing  upon  the  ruins.  Cities  are  turned  into 
shambles,  whole  countries  into  deserts,  villages  into  cemeteries, 
whole  nations  into  beggars,  churches  into  stables ;  popular  rights, 
treaties,  alliances,  the  holiest  words  and  the  highest  authorities 
have  been  torn  into  scraps ;  every  sovereign  by  the  grace  of  God 
is  called  a  fool,  an  unfaithful  wretch,  by  his  cousin  on  the  other 
side;  every  diplomat  calls  his  colleague  in  the  enemy's  country  a 
desperate  criminal ;  each  government  looks  upon  the  other  as  the 
evil  genius  of  its  people,  worthy  only  of  the  contempt  of  the 
world.  Himger  revolts  in  Venetia,  in  Lisbon,  in  Moscow,  in 
Singapore,  pestilence  in  Russia,  misery  and  desperation  every- 
where. 

Shamed,  dishonored,  wading  in  blood  and  dripping  with  filth, 
thus  capitalist  society  stands.  Not  as  we  usually  see  it,  playing  the 
roles  of  peace  and  righteousness,  of  order,  of  philosophy,  of 
ethics — as  a  roaring  beast,  as  an  orgy  of  anarchy,  as  a  pestilential 
breath,  devastating  culture  and  humanity — ^so  it  appears  in  all  its 
hideous  nakedness. 

And  in  the  midst  of  this  orgy  a  world  tragedy  has  occurred; 
the  capitulation  of  the  Social-Democracy.  To  close  one's  eyes 
to  this  fact,  to  try  to  hide  it,  would  be  the  most  foolish,  the  most 
dangerous  thing  that  the  international  proletariat  could  do.  "The 
Democrat  (i.  e.  the  revolutionary  middle-class)"  says  Karl  Marx, 
"emerges  from  the  most  shameful  downfall  as  spotlessly  as  he 
went  innocently  into  it.  With  the  strengthened  confidence  that  he 
must  win,  he  is  more  tiian  ever  certain  that  he  and  his  party  need 
no  new  principles,  that  events  and  conditions  must  finally  come  to 
meet  them."    Gigantic  as  his  problems   are   his   mistakes.    No 


THE  CRISIS  9 

firmly  fixed  plan,  no  orthodox  ritual  that  holds  good  for  all  times, 
shows  him  the  path  that  he  must  travel.  Historical  experience  is 
his  only  teacher,  his  Via  Dolorosa  to  freedom  is  covered  not  only 
with  unspeakable  suffering,  but  with  countless  mistakes.  The 
goal  of  his  journey,  his  final  liberation,  depends  entirely  upon  the 
proletariat,  on  whether  it  understands  to  learn  from  its  own  mis- 
takes. Self  criticism,  cruel,  unsparing  criticim  that  goes  to  the  very 
root  of  the  evil  is  life  and  breath  for  the  proletarian  movement. 
The  catastrophe  into  which  the  world  has  thrust  the  socialist 
proletariat  is  an  unexampled  misfortune  for  humanity.  But 
Socialism  is  lost  only  if  the  international  proletariat  is  unable  to 
measure  the  depths  of  the  catastrophe  and  refuses  to  understand 
the  lesson  that  it  teaches. 

The  last  forty-five  years  in  the  development  of  the  labor  move- 
ment are  at  stake.  The  present  situation  is  a  closing  of  its  ac- 
counts, a  summing  up  of  the  items  of  half  a  century  of  work.  In 
the  grave  of  the  Paris  Commune  lies  buried  the  first  phase  of  the 
European  labor  movement  and  the  first  International.  Instead  of 
spontaneous  revolution,  revolts,  and  barricades,  after  each  of 
which  the  proletariat  relapsed  once  more  into  its  dull  passiveness, 
there  came  the  systematic  daily  struggle,  the  utilization  of  bour- 
geois parliamentarism,  mass  organization,  the  welding  of  the 
economic  with  the  political  struggle,  of  socialist  ideals  with  the 
stubborn  defense  of  most  immediate  interests.  For  the  first  time 
the  cause  of  the  proletariat  and  its  emancipation  were  led  by  the 
guiding  star  of  scientific  knowledge.  In  place  of  sects  and 
schools,  Utopian  undertakings  and  experiments  in  every  country, 
each  altogether  and  absolutely  separate  from  each  other,  we 
found  a  uniform,  international,  theoretical  basis,  that  united  the 
nations.  The  theoretical  works  of  Marx  gave  to  the  working- 
class  of  the  whole  world  a  compass  by  which  to  fix  its  tactics 
from  hour  to  hour,  in  its  journey  toward  the  one  unchanging 
goal. 

The  bearer,  the  defender,  the  protector  of  this  new  method  was 


10  THE  CRISIS 

the  German  Social-Democracy.  The  war  of  1870  and  the  down- 
fall of  the  Paris  Commune  had  shifted  the  centre  of  gravity  of 
the  European  labor  movement  to  Germany.  Just  as  France  was 
the  classic  country  of  the  first  phase  of  the  proletarian  class- 
struggle,  as  Paris  was  the  torn  and  bleeding  heart  of  the  European 
working-class  of  that  time,  so  the  German  working-class  became 
the  vanguard  of  the  second  phase.  By  innumerable  sacrifices  in 
the  form  of  agitational  work  it  has  built  up  the  strongest,  the 
model  organization  of  the  proletariat,  has  created  the  greatest 
press,  has  developed  the  most  effective  educational  and  propa- 
ganda methods.  It  has  collected  under  its  banners  the  most 
gigantic  labor  masses,  and  has  elected  the  largest  representative 
groups  to  its  national  parliament. 

The  German  Social-Democracy  has  been  generally  acknowl- 
edged to  be  the  purest  incarnation  of  Marxian  Socialism.  It  has 
held  and  wielded  a  peculiar  prestige  as  teacher  and  leader  in  the 
second  International.  Friedrich  Engels  wrote  in  his  famous  fore- 
word to  Marx's  "Class-Struggle  in  France":  "Whatever  may 
occur  in  other  countries,  the  German  Social-Democracy  occupies 
a  particular  place  and,  for  the  present  at  least,  has  therefore  a 
particular  duty  to  perform.  The  two  million  voters  that  it  sends 
to  the  ballot  boxes,  and  the  young  girls  and  women  who  stand 
behind  them  as  non-voters,  are  numerically  the  greatest,  the  most 
compact  mass,  the  most  decisive  force  of  the  proletarian  interna- 
tional army."  The  German  Social-Democracy  was,  as  the  "Wiener 
Arbeiter-Zeitung"  wrote  on  August  5th,  1914,  the  jewel  of  the 
organization  of  the  classconscious  proletariat.  In  its  footsteps 
the  French,  the  Italian  and  the  Belgian  Social  Democracies,  the 
labor  movements  of  Holland,  Scandinavia,  Switzerland  and 
United  States  followed  more  or  less  eagerly.  The  Slav  nations, 
the  Russians  and  the  Social-Democrats  of  the  Balkan  looked  up 
to  the  German  movement  in  boundless,  almost  unquestioning  ad- 
miration. In  the  second  International  the  German  Social-De- 
mocracy was  the  determining  factor.    In  every  congress,  in  the 


THE  CRISIS  11 

meetings  of  the  International  Socialist  Bureau,  everything  waited 
upon  the  opinion  of  the  German  group. 

Particularly  in  the  fight  against  militarism  and  war  the  posi- 
tion taken  by  the  German  Social-Democracy  has  always  been 
decisive.  "We  Germans  cannot  accept  that,"  was  usually  suf- 
ficient to  determine  the  orientation  of  the  International.  Blindly 
confident,  it  submitted  to  the  leadership  of  the  much  admired, 
mighty  German  Social-Democracy.  It  was  the  pride  of  every 
Socialist,  the  horror  of  the  ruling  classes  of  all  countires. 

And  what  happened  in  Germany  when  the  great  historical 
crisis  came?  The  deepest  fall,  the  mightiest  cataclysm.  No- 
where was  the  organization  of  the  proletariat  made  so  completely 
subservient  to  imperialism.  Nowhere  was  the  state  of  siege  so 
uncomplainingly  borne.  Nowhere  was  the  press  so  thoroughly 
gagged,  public  opinion  so  completely  choked  off;  nowhere  was 
the  political  and  industrial  class-struggle  of  the  working-class  so 
entirely  abandoned  as  in  Germany. 

But  the  German  Social-Democracy  was  not  only  the  strongest 
body,  it  was  the  thinking  brain  of  the  International  as  well. 
Therefore  the  process  of  self-analysis  and  appraisement  must 
begin  in  its  own  movement,  with  its  own  case.  It  is  in  honor 
bound  to  lead  the  way  to  the  rescue  of  international  Socialism,  to 
proceed  with  the  unsparing  criticism  of  its  own  shortcomings. 

No  other  party,  no  other  class  in  capitalist  society  can  dare  to 
expose  its  own  errors,  its  own  weaknesses,  before  the  whole  world 
in  the  clear  mirror  of  reason,  for  the  mirror  would  reflect  the  his- 
torical fate  that  is  hidden  behind  it.  The  working-class  can  always 
look  truth  in  the  face  even  when  this  means  bitterest  self -accusa- 
tion; for  its  weakness  was  but  an  error  and  the  inexorable  laws 
of  history  give  it  strength  and  assure  its  final  victory. 

This  unsparing  self-criticism  is  not  only  a  fundamental 
necessity,  but  the  highest  duty  of  the  working-class  as  well.  We 
have  on  board  the  highest  treasure  of  humarity,  and  the  proletariat 


12  THE  CRISIS 

is  their  ordained  protector.  While  capitalist  society,  shamed  and 
dishonored,  rushes  through  the  bloody  orgy  to  its  doom,  the 
international  proletariat  will  gather  the  golden  treasures  that  were 
allowed  to  sink  to  the  bottom  in  the  wild  whirlpool  of  the  world- 
war  in  the  moment  of  confusion  and  weakness. 

One  thing  is  certain.  It  is  a  foolish  delusion  to  believe  that  we 
need  only  live  through  the  war,  as  a  rabbit  hides  under  the  bush 
to  await  the  end  of  a  thunderstorm,  to  trot  merrily  off  in  his  old 
accustomed  gait  when  all  is  over.  The  world-war  has  changed 
the  condition  of  our  struggle,  and  has  changed  us  most  of  all. 
Not  that  the  laws  of  capitalist  development  or  the  life  and  death 
conflict  between  capital  and  labor  have  been  changed  or  mini- 
mized. Even  now,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  the  masks  are  falling, 
and  the  old  well-known  faces  grinning  at  us.  But  evolution  has 
received  a  mighty  forward  impetus  through  the  outbreak  of  the 
imperialist  volcano.  The  enormity  of  the  tasks  that  tower  before 
the  socialist  proletariat  in  the  immediate  future  make  the  past 
struggles  of  the  labor  movement  seem  but  a  delightful  idyll  in 
comparison. 

Historically  the  war  is  ordained  to  give  to  the  cause  of  labor 
a  mighty  impetus.  Marx,  whose  prophetic  eyes  foresaw  so  many 
historic  events  as  they  lay  in  the  womb  of  the  future,  writes,  in 
"The  Class-Struggle  in  France,"  the  following  significant  pass- 
age: "In  France  the  middle  class  does  what  should  normally  be 
done  by  the  industrial  bourgeoisie  (i.  e.  to  fight  for  the  demo- 
cratic republic) ;  but  who  shall  solve  the  problems  of  labor? 
They  will  not  be  solved  in  France.  They  will  be  proclaimed  in 
France.  They  will  nowhere  be  solved  within  national  boundaries. 
Qass  war  in  France  will  revert  into  a  world  war.  The  solution 
will  begin  only  when  the  world  war  has  driven  the  proletariat  into 
the  leadership  of  that  nation  which  controls  the  world  market,  to 
the  leadership  of  England.  The  revolution  that  will  here  find, 
not  its  end,  but  its  organizatory  beginning,  is  no  short-lived 
one.    The  present  generation  is  like  the  Jews  who  were  led  by 


THE  CRISIS  IS 

Moses  through  the  wilderness.  Not  only  must  it  conquer  a  new 
world,  it  must  go  down  to  make  way  for  those  who  will  be  better 
able  to  cope  with  its  problems." 

This  was  written  in  1850,  at  a  time  when  England  was  the 
only  capitalistically  developed  nation,  when  the  English  proletariat 
was  the  best  organized  and  seemed  destined  through  the  in- 
dustrial growth  of  its  nation  to  take  the  leadership  in  the  inter- 
national labor  movement.  Read  Germany  instead  of  England, 
and  the  words  of  Karl  Marx  become  an  inspired  prohpecy  of  the 
present  world  war.  It  is  ordained  to  drive  the  Grerman  prole- 
tariat "to  the  leadership  of  the  people,  and  thus  to  create  the  or- 
ganizatory  beginning  of  the  great  international  conflict  between 
labor  and  capital  for  the  political  supremacy  of  the  world." 

Have  we  ever  had  a  different  conception  of  the  role  to  be 
played  by  the  working-class  in  the  great  world-war?  Have  we 
forgotten  how  we  were  wont  to  describe  the  coming  event,  only 
a  few  short  years  ago?  "Then  will  come  the  catastrophe.  All 
Europe  will  be  called  to  arms,  and  sixteen  to  eighteen  million 
men,  the  flower  of  the  nations,  armed  with  the  best  instruments 
of  murder  will  make  war  upon  each  other.  But  I  believe  that 
behind  this  march  there  looms  the  final  crash.  Not  we,  but  they 
themselves  will  bring  it.  They  are  driving  things  to  the  extreme, 
they  are  leading  us  straight  into  a  catastrophe.  They  will  harvest 
what  they  have  sown.  The  Goetterdaemmerung  of  the  bourgeois 
world  is  at  hand.  Be  sure  of  that.  It  is  coming."  Thus  spoke 
Bebel,  the  speaker  of  our  group  in  the  Reichstag  in  the  Morocco 
debate. 

An  official  leaflet  published  by  the  Party,  "Imperialism  and 
Socialism,"  that  was  distributed  in  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
copies  only  a  few  years  ago,  closes  with  the  words:  "Thus  the 
struggle  against  militarism  daily  becomes  more  and  more  clearly 
a  decisive  struggle  between  capital  and  labor.  War,  high  prices 
and  capitalism — peace,  happiness  for  all.  Socialism !    Yours  is  the 


14  THE  CRISIS 

choice.  History  is  hastening  onward  toward  a  decision.  The 
proletariat  must  work  unceasingly  at  its  world  mission,  must 
strengthen  the  power  of  its  organization  and  the  clearness  of  its 
understanding.  Then,  come  what  will,  whether  it  will  succeed,  by 
its  power,  in  saving  humanity  from  the  horrible  cruelties  of  the 
world-war,  or  whether  capitalism  shall  sink  back  into  history, 
as  it  was  bom,  in  blood  and  violence,  the  historic  moment  will 
find  the  working-class  prepared,  and  preparedness  is  every- 
thing." 

The  official  handbook  for  socialist  voters,  in  191 1,  the  date  of 
the  last  Reichstag  elections,  contains,  on  page  42,  the  following 
comments  on  the  expected  world-war:  "Do  our  rulers  and  our 
ruling  classes  dare  to  demand  this  awful  thing  of  the  people? 
Will  not  a  cry  of  horror,  of  fury  and  of  indignation  fill  the 
country  and  lead  the  people  to  put  an  end  to  this  murder?  Will 
they  not  ask:  'For  whom  and  for  what?  Are  we  insane  that 
we  should  be  treated  thus  or  should  tolerate  such  treatment?'  He 
who  dispassionately  considers  the  possibility  of  a  great  European 
world-war  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion." 

"The  next  European  war  will  be  a  game  of  va-banque,  whose 
equal  the  world  has  never  seen  before.  It  will  be,  in  all  proba- 
bility, the  last  war." 

With  such  words  the  Reichstag  representatives  won  their  110 
seats  in  the  Reichstag. 

When  in  the  summer  of  1911  the  "Panther"  made  its  spring 
to  Agadir,  and  the  noisy  clamor  of  German  imperialists  brought 
Europe  to  the  precipice  of  war,  an  international  meeting  in  Lon- 
don, on  the  4th  of  August,  adopted  the  following  resolution : 

"The  German,  Spanish,  English,  Dutch  and  French  delegates 
of  labor  organizations  hereby  declare  their  readiness  to  oppose 
■every  declaration  of  war  with  every  means  in  their  power.  Every 
nationality  here  represented  pledges  itself,  in  accordance  with 
the  decisions  of  its  national  and  international  congresses  to  oppose 
all  criminal  machinations  on  the  part  of  the  ruling  classes." 


THE  CRISIS  15 

But  when  in  November,  1910,  the  International  Peace  Congress 
met  at  Basel,  when  the  long  train  of  labor  representatives  entered 
the  Minster,  a  presentiment  of  the  coming  hour  of  fate  made 
them  shudder  and  the  heroic  resolve  took  shape  in  every  breast. 

The  cool,  sceptical  Victor  Adler  cried  out:  "Comrades,  it  is 
most  important  that  we  here,  at  the  common  source  of  our 
strength,  that  we,  each  and  every  one  of  us  take  from  hence  the 
strength  to  do  in  his  country  what  he  can,  through  the  forms  and 
means  that  are  at  his  disposal,  to  oppose  this  crime  of  war.  And 
if  it  should  be  accomplished,  if  we  should  really  be  able  to  pre- 
vent war,  let  this  be  the  cornerstone  of  our  coming  victory.  That 
:s  the  spirit  that  animates  the  whole  International. 

"And  when  murder  and  arson  and  pestilence  sweep  over  civi- 
lized Europe — we  can  think  of  it  only  with  horror  and  indigna- 
tion, and  protests  ring  from  our  hearts.  And  we  ask,  are  the 
proletarians  of  today  really  nothing  but  sheep  to  be  led  mutely 
to  the  slaughter?" 

Troelstra  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  small  nations,  in  the  name 
of  the  Belgians  as  well: 

"With  their  blood  and  with  all  that  they  possess  the  proletariat 
of  the  small  nations  swear  their  allegiance  to  the  International 
in  everything  that  it  may  decide  to  prevent  war.  Again  we  repeat 
that  we  expect,  when  the  ruling  classes  of  the  large  nations  call 
the  sons  of  the  proletariat  to  arms  to  satiate  the  lust  for  power 
and  the  greed  of  their  rulers,  in  the  blood  and  on  th,e  lands  of  the 
small  peoples,  we  expect  that  then  the  sons  of  the  proletariat, 
under  the  powerful  influence  of  their  proletarian  parents  and  of 
the  proletarian  press,  will  think  thrice  before  they  harm  us, 
their  friends,  in  the  service  of  the  enemies  of  culture." 

And  Jaures  closed  his  speech,  after  the  anti-war  manifesto  of 
the   International  Bureau  had  been   read: 

"The  International  represents  the  moral  forces  of  the  world! 
And  when  the  tragic  hour  strikes,  when  we  must  sacrifice  our- 


16  THE  CRISIS 

selves,  this  knowledge  will  support  and  strengthen  us.  Not 
lightly,  but  from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts  we  declare  that  we 
are  ready  for  all  sacrifices  1" 

It  was  like  a  Ruetli  pledge.  The  whole  world  looked  toward 
the  Minster  of  Basel,  where  the  bells,  slowly  and  solemnly,  rang  to 
the  approaching  great  fight  between  the  armies  of  labor  and 
capital. 

On  the  third  of  September,  1913,  the  social-democratic  deputy, 
David,  spoke  in  the  German  Reichstag: 

"That  was  the  most  beautiful  hour  of  my  life.  That  I  here 
avow.  When  the  chimes  of  the  Minster  rang  in  the  long  train 
of  international  Social-Democrats,  when  the  red  flags  were 
planted  in  the  nave  of  the  church  about  the  altar,  when  the  emis- 
saries of  the  people  were  greeted  by  the  peels  of  the  organ  that 
resounded  the  message  of  peace,  that  was  an  impression  that  I 
can  never  forget  .... 

"You  must  realize  what  it  was  that  happened  here.  The  masses 
have  ceased  to  be  willess,  thoughtless  herds.  That  is  new  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  Hitherto  the  masses  have  always  blindly 
followed  the  lead  of  those  who  were  interested  in  war,  who  drove 
the  peoples  at  each  others'  throats  to  mass  murder.  That  will 
stop.  The  masses  have  ceased  to  be  the  instruments,  the  yeomen 
of  war  profiteers." 

A  week  before  the  war  broke  out,  on  the  26th  of  July,  1914, 
the  German  party  papers  wrote : 

"We  are  no  marionettes;  we  are  fighting  with  all  our  might, 
against  a  system  that  makes  men  the  powerless  tools  of  blind 
circumstances,  against  this  capitalism  that  is  preparing  to  change 
Europe,  thirsty  for  peace,  into  a  smoking  battlefield.  If  destruc- 
tion takes  its  course,  if  the  determined  will  for  peace  of  the 
German,  of  the  international  proletariat,  that  will  find  expression 
in  the  next  few  days  in  mighty  demonstrations^  should  not  be 


THE  CRISIS  17 

able  to  prevent  the  world-war,  then  it  must  be  at  least,  the  last 
war,  it  must  be  the  Goetterdaemmerung  of  capitalism." 

On  the  30th  of  July,  1914,  the  central  organ  of  the  German 
Social-Democracy  cried  out: 

"The  socialist  proletariat  rejects  all  responsibility  for  the  events 
that  are  being  precipitated  by  a  ruling  class  that  is  blinded,  and 
on  the  verge  of  madness.  We  know  that  for  us  new  life  will 
spring  from  the  ruins.  But  the  responsibility  falls  upon  the  rulers 
of  today. 

"For  them  it  is  a  question  of  existence! 

"Die  Weltgeschichte  ist  das  Weltgericht!" 

And  then  came  the  awful,  the  incredible  4th  of  August,  1914. 

Did  it  have  to  come  ?  An  event  of  such  importance  cannot  be 
a  mere  accident.  It  must  have  its  deep,  significant,  objective 
causes.  But  perhaps  these  causes  may  be  found  in  the  errors  of 
the  leader  of  the  proletariat,  the  Social-Democracy  itself,  in  the 
fact  that  our  readiness  to  fight  has  flagged,  that  our  courage  and 
our  convictions  have  forsaken  us.  Scientific  Socialism  has 
taught  us  to  recognize  the  objective  laws  of  historical  develop- 
ment. Man  does  not  make  history  of  his  own  volition,  but  he 
makes  history  nevertheless.  The  proletariat  is  dependent  in  its 
actions  upon  the  degree  of  righteousness  to  which  social  evolu- 
tion has  advanced.  But  again,  social  evolution  is  not  a  thing  apart 
from  the  proletariat;  it  is  in  the  same  measure  its  driving  force 
and  its  cause  as  well  as  its  product  and  its  effect.  And  though 
we  can  no  more  skip  a  period  in  our  historical  development  than 
a  man  can  jump  over  his  shadow,  it  lies  within  our  power  to  ac- 
celerate or  to  retard  it. 

Socialism  is  the  first  popular  movement  in  the  world  that  has 
set.  itself  a  goal  and  has  established  in  the  social  life  of  man  a 
conscious  thought,  a  definite  plan,  the  free  will  of  mankind.  For 
this  reason  Friedrich  Engels  calls  the  final  victory  of  the  socialist 
proletariat  a  stride  by  human  kind  from  the  animal  kingdom  into 


18  THE  CRISIS 

the  kingdom  of  liberty.  This  step,  too,  is  bound  by  unalterable 
historical  laws  to  the  thousands  of  rungs  of  the  ladder  of  the  past 
with  its  tortuous,  sluggish  growth.  But  it  will  never  be  accom- 
plished, if  the  burning  spark  of  the  conscious  will  of  the  masses 
does  not  spring  from  the  material  conditions  that  have  been 
built  up  by  past  development.  Socialism  will  not  fall  as  manna 
from  heaven.  It  can  only  be  won  by  a  long  chain  of  powerful 
struggles,  in  which  the  proletariat,  under  the  leadership  of  the 
Social-Democracy,  will  learn  to  take  hold  of  the  rudder  of  society 
to  become,  instead  of  the  powerless  victim  of  history,  its  con- 
scious guide. 

Friedrich  Engels  once  said : 

"Capitalist  society  faces  a  dilemma,  either  an  advance  to 
Socialism  or  a  reversion  to  barbarism."  What  does  a  "reversion 
to  barbarism"  mean  at  the  present  stage  of  European  civilization? 
We  have  read  and  repeated  these  words  thoughtlessly,  without  a 
conception  of  their  terrible  import.  At  this  moment  one  glance 
about  us  will  show  us  what  a  reversion  to  barbarism  in  capitalist 
society  means.  This  world-war  means  a  reversion  to  barbarism. 
The  triumph  of  imperialism  leads  to  the  destruction  of  culture, 
sporadically  during  a  modern  war,  and  forever,  if  the  period  of 
world- wars  that  has  just  begun  is  allowed  to  take  its  damnable 
course  to  the  last  ultimate  consequence.  Thus  we  stand  today, 
as  Friedrich  Engels  prophesied  more  than  a  generation  ago,  be- 
fore the  awful  proposition:  Either  the  triumph  of  imperialism 
and  the  destruction  of  all  culture,  and,  as  in  ancient  Rome, 
depopulation,  desolation,  degeneration,  a  vast  cemetery;  or,  the 
victory  of  Socialism,  that  is,  the  conscious  struggle  of  the  inter- 
national proletariat  against  imperialism,  against  its  methods, 
against  war.  This  is  the  dilemma  of  world  history,  its  inevitable 
choice,  whose  scales  are  trembling  in  the  balance,  awaiting  the 
decision  of  the  proletariat.  Upon  it  depends  the  future  of  cul- 
ture and  humanity.  In  this  war  imperialism  has  been  victorious. 
Its  brutal  sword  of  murder  has  dashed  the  scales,  with  overbear- 


THE  CRISIS  19 

ing  brutality,  down  into  the  abyss  of  shame  and  misery.  If  the 
proletariat  learns  from  this  war  and  in  this  war  to  exert  itself, 
to  cast  oif  its  serfdom  to  the  ruling  classes,  to  become  the  lord  of 
its  own  destiny,  the  shame  and  misery  will  not  have  been  in  vain. 
The  modern  working-class  must  pay  dearly  for  each  realiza- 
tion of  its  historic  mission.  The  road  to  the  Golgotha  of  its 
class  liberation  is  strewn  with  awful  sacrifices.  The  Jime- 
combatants,  the  victims  of  the  Commune,  the  martyrs  of  the 
Russian  Revolution — an  endless  line  of  bloody  shadows.  They 
have  fallen  on  the  field  of  honor,  as  Marx  wrote  of  the  heroes 
of  the  Commune,  to  be  enshrined  forever  in  the  great  heart  of 
the  working-class.  Now  millions  of  proletarians  are  falling  on 
the  field  of  dishonor,  of  fratricide,  of  self-destruction,  the  slave- 
song  on  their  lips.  And  that,  too,  has  not  been  spared  us.  We 
are  like  the  Jews  whom  Moses  led  through  the  desert.  But  we 
are  not  lost,  and  we  will  be  victorious  if  we  have  not  forgotten 
how  to  learn.  And  if  the  modern  leaders  of  the  proletariat  do  not 
know  how  to  learn,  they  will  go  down  "to  make  room  for  those 
who  will  be  more  able  to  cope  with  the  problems  of  a  new  world." 


20  THE  CRISIS 


CHAPTER  II. 


"We  are  now  facing  the  irrevocable  fact  of  war.  We  are 
threatened  by  the  horrors  of  invasion.  The  decision,  today,  is 
not  for  or  against  war;  for  us  there  can  be  but  one  question: 
By  what  means  is  this  war  to  be  conducted?  Much,  aye  every- 
thing,  is  at  stake  for  our  people  and  its  future,  if  Russian 
despotism,  stained  with  the  blood  of  its  own  people,  should  be 
the  victor.  This  danger  must  be  averted,  the  civilization  and  the 
independence  of  our  people  must  be  safeguarded.  Therefore  we 
will  carry  out  what  we  have  always  promised:  In  the  hour  of 
danger  we  will  not  desert  our  fatherland.  In  this  we  feel  that 
we  stand  in  harmony  with  the  International,  which  has  always 
recognized  the  right  of  every  people  to  its  national  independence, 
as  we  stand  in  agreement  with  the  International  in  emphatically 
denouncing  every  war  of  conquest.  Actuated  by  these  motives^ 
we  vote  in  favor  of  the  war  credits  demanded  by  the  Govern- 
ment." 

With  these  words  the  Reichstag  group  issued  the  counter- 
sign that  determined  and  controlled  the  position  of  the  German 
working-class  during  the  war.  Fatherland  in  danger,  national 
defense,  people's  war  for  existence,  Kultur,  liberty — ^these  were 
the  slogans  proclaimed  by  the  parliamentary  representatives  of  the 
Social-Democracy.  What  followed  was  but  the  logical  sequence. 
The  position  of  the  Party  and  the  labor  union  press,  the  patriotic 
frenzy  of  the  masses,  the  civil  peace,  the  disintegration  of  the 
International,  all  these  things  were  the  inevitable  consequence 
of  that  momentous  orientation  in  the  Reichstag. 

If  it  is  true  that  this  war  is  really  a  fight  for  national  existence, 
for  freedom,  if  it  is  true  that  these  priceless  possessions  can  be 
defended  only  by  the  iron  tools  of  murder,  if  this  war  is  the 
holy  cause  of  the  people,  then  everything  else  follows  as  a  matter 
of  course,  we  must  take  everything  that  the  war  may  bring  as  a 


THE  CRISIS  21 

part  of  the  bargain.  He  who  desires  the  purpose  must  be  satis- 
fied with  the  means.  War  is  methodical,  organized,  gigantic 
murder.  But  in  normal  human  beings  this  systematic  murder  is 
possible  only  when  a  state  of  intoxication  has  been  previously 
created.  This  has  always  been  the  tried  and  proven  method  of 
those  who  make  war.  Bestiality  of  action  must  find  a  com- 
mensurate bestiality  of  thought  and  senses;  the  latter  must  pre- 
pare and  accompany  the  former.  Thus  the  "Wahre  Jacob"  of 
August  28th,  1914,  with  its  brutal  picture  of  the  German 
thresher,  the  Party  papers  of  Chemnitz,  Hamburg,  Kiel,  Frank- 
furt a.  M.,  Koburg  and  others,  with  their  patriotic  drive  in 
poetry  and  prose,  were  the  necessary  narcotic  for  a  proletariat 
that  could  rescue  its  existence  and  its  liberty  only  by  plimging 
the  deadly  steel  into  its  French  and  English  brothers.  These 
chauvinistic  papers  are  after  all  a  great  deal  more  logical  and 
consistent  than  those  others  who  attempted  to  imite  hill  and 
valley,  war  with  humanity,  murder  with  brotherly  love,  the  voting 
for  war  credits  with  socialist  internationalism. 

If  the  stand  taken  by  the  German  Reichstag  group  on  the 
fourth  of  August  was  correct,  then  the  death  sentence  of  the 
proletarian  International  has  been  spoken,  not  only  for  this  war, 
but  for  ever.  For  the  first  time  since  the  modern  labor  move- 
ment exists  there  yawns  an  abyss  between  the  commandments 
of  international  solidarity  of  the  proletariat  of  the  world  and  the 
interests  of  freedom  and  nationalist  existence  of  the  people;  for 
the  first  tirne  we  discover  that  the  independence  and  liberty  of  the 
nations  command  that  workingmen  kill  and  destroy  each  other. 
Up  to  this  time  we  have  cherished  the  belief  that  the  interests  of 
the  peoples  of  all  nations,  that  the  class  interests  of  the  proletariat 
are  a  harmonious  unit,  that  they  are  identical,  that  they  cannot 
possibly  come  into  conflict  with  one  another.  That  was  the  basis 
of  our  theory  and  practice,  the  soul  of  our  agitation.  Were  we 
mistaken  in  the  cardinal  point  of  our  whole  world  philosophy? 
We  are  holding  an  inquest  over  international  Socialism. 


22  THE  CRISIS 

This  world  war  is  not  the  first  crisis  through  which  our  inter- 
national principles  have  passed.  Our  Party  was  first  tried  forty- 
five  years  ago.  At  that  time,  on  the  21st  of  July,  1870,  Wilhelm 
Liebknecht  and  August  Bebel  made  the  following  historical 
declaration  before  the  Reichstag: 

"The  present  war  is  a  dynastic  war  in  the  interest  of  the 
Bonaparte  dynasty,  as  the  war  of  1866  was  conducted  in  the 
interest  of  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty. 

"We  cannot  vote  for  the  funds  which  are  demanded  from  the 
Reichstag  to  conduct  this  war  because  this  would  be,  in  effect, 
a  vote  of  confidence  in  the  Prussian  government.  And  we  know 
that  the  Prussian  government,  by  its  action  in  1866,  prepared 
this  war.  At  the  same  time  we  cannot  vote  against  the  budget, 
lest  this  be  construed  to  mean  that  we  support  the  conscienceless 
and  criminal  policies  of  Bonaparte. 

"As  opponents,  on  principle,  of  every  dynastic  war,  as  Social- 
ist-Republicans and  members  of  the  'International  Working- 
men's  Association'  which,  without  regard  to  nationality,  has 
fought  all  oppressors,  has  tried  to  unite  all  the  oppressed  into 
a  great  band  of  brothers,  we  cannot  directly  or  indirectly  lend 
support  to  the  present  war.  We  therefore  refuse  to  vote,  while 
expressing  the  earnest  hope  that  the  peoples  of  Europe,  taught 
by  the  present  unholy  events,  will  strive  to  win  the  right  to  con- 
trol their  own  destinies,  to  do  away  with  the  present  rule  of 
might  and  class  as  the  cause  of  all  social  and  national  evil." 

With  this  declaration  the  representatives  of  the  German  prol- 
etariat put  their  cause  clearly  and  unreservedly  under  the  banner 
of  the  International  and  definitely  repudiated  the  war  against 
France  as  a  national  war  of  independence.  It  is  well  known 
that  Bebel  many  years  later,  in  his  memoirs,  stated  that  he  would 
have  voted  against  the  war  loan  had  he  known,  when  the  vote 
was  taken,  the  things  that  were  revealed  in  the  years  that 
followed. 

Thus,  in  a  war  that  was  considered  by  the  whole  bourgeois 


THE  CRISIS  23 

public,  and  by  a  powerful  majority  of  the  people  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Bismarckian  strategy,  as  a  war  in  the  national  life  interest 
of  Germany,  the  leaders  of  the  German  Social-Democracy  held 
firmly  to  the  conviction  that  the  life  interest  of  a  nation  and  the 
class  interest  of  the  proletariat  are  one,  that  both  are  opposed  to 
war.  It  was  left  to  the  present  world  war  and  to  the  Social- 
Democratic  Reichstag  group  to  uncover,  for  the  first  time,  the 
terrible  dilemma — either  you  are  for  national  liberty — or  for  inter- 
national Socialism. 

Now  the  fundamental  fact  in  the  declaration  of  our  Reichstag 
group  was,  in  all  probability,  a  sudden  inspiration.  It  was  simply 
an  echo  of  the  crown  speech  and  of  the  Chancellor's  speech  of 
August  fourth.  "We  are  not  driven  by  the  desire  for  conquest," 
we  hear  in  the  crown  speech,  "we  are  inspired  by  the  unalterable 
determination  to  preserve  the  land  upon  which  God  has  placed 
us  for  ourselves,  and  for  all  coming  generations.  From  the  docu- 
ments that  have  been  presented  to  you,  you  will  have  seen  how 
My  Government,  and  above  all  My  Chancellor  strove,  to  the  last, 
to  avert  the  utmost.  We  grasp  the  sword  in  self-defense,  with  a 
clear  conscience  and  a  clean  hand."  And  Bethmann-Hollweg  de- 
clared: "Gentlemen,  we  are  acting  in  self-defense,  and  necessity 
knows  no  law.  He  who  is  threatened  as  we  are  threatened,  he 
who  is  fighting  for  the  highest  aims  can  be  guided  by  but  one 
consideration,  how  best  to  beat  his  way  out  of  the  struggle.  We 
are  fighting  for  the  fruits  of  our  peaceful  labor,  for  the  heritage 
of  our  great  past,  for  the  future  of  our  nation."  Wherein  does 
this  differ  from  the  social-democratic  declaration?  1.  We  have 
done  everything  to  preserve  peace,  the  war  was  forced  upon  us 
by  others.  2.  Now  that  the  war  is  here  we  must  act  in  self- 
defense.  3.  In  this  war  the  German  people  is  in  danger  of  losing 
everything.  This  declaration  of  our  Reichstag  group  is  an 
obvious  rehashing  of  the  government  declaration.  As  the  latter 
based  their  claims  upon  diplomatic  negotiations  and  imperial  tele- 
grams, so  the  socialist  group  points  to  peace  demonstrations  of 


24  THE  CRISIS 

the  Social-Democracy  before  the  war.  Where  the  crown  speech 
denies  all  aims  of  conquest,  the  Reichstag  group  repudiates  a  war 
of  conquest  by  standing  upon  its  Socialism.  And  when  the 
Emperor  and  the  Chancellor  cry  out,  "We  are  fighting  for  the 
highest  principles.  We  know  no  parties,  we  know  only  Ger- 
mans," the  social-democratic  declaration  echoes:  "Our  people 
risks  everything.  In  this  hour  of  danger  we  will  not  desert  our 
Fatherland."  Only  in  one  point  does  the  social-democratic 
declaration  differ  from  its  government  model,  it  placed  the  danger 
of  Russian  despotism  in  the  foreground  of  its  orientation,  as  a 
danger  to  German  freedom.  The  crown  speech  says,  regarding 
Russia:  "With  a  heavy  heart  I  have  been  forced  to  mobilize 
against  a  neighbor  with  whom  I  have  fought  upon  so  many  battle 
fields.  With  honest  sorrow  I  have  seen  a  friendship  faithfully 
kept  by  Germany,  fall  to  pieces."  The  social-democratic  group 
changed  this  sorrowful  rupture  of  a  true  friendship  with  the 
Russian  Tsar  into  a  fanfare  for  liberty  against  despotism,  used 
the  revolutionary  heritage  of  Socialism  to  give  to  the  war  a 
democratic  mantle,  a  popular  halo.  Here  alone  the  social-demo- 
cratic declaration  gives  evidence  of  independent  thought  on  the 
part  of  our  Social-Democrats. 

As  we  have  said,  all  these  things  came  to  the  Social  Democracy 
as  a  sudden  inspiration  on  the  fourth  of  August.  All  that  they 
'had  said  up  to  this  day,  every  declaration  that  they  had  made, 
down  to  the  very  eve  of  the  war,  was  in  diametrical  opposition 
to  the  declaration  df  the  Reichstag  group.  The  "Vorwaerts" 
wrote  on  July  25th,  when  the  Austrian  ultimatum  to  Servia  was 
published : 

"They  want  the  war,  the  unscrupulous  elements  that  influence  and 
determine  the  Wiener  Hofburg.  They  want  the  war — it  has  been 
ringing  out  of  the  wild  cries  of  the  black-yellow  press  for  weeks. 
They  want  the  war — the  Austrian  ultimatum  to  Servia  makes  it  plain 
and  clear  to  the  world. 

"Because  the  blood  of  Franz  Ferdinand  and  his  wife  flowed  under 
the  shots  of  an  insane  fanatic,  shall  the  blood  of  thousands  of  workers 


THE  CRISIS  25 

and  fanners  be  shed?  Shall  one  insane  crime  be  purged  by  another 
even  more  insane?  .  ,  .  The  Austrian  ultimatum  may  be  the  torch 
that  will  set  Europe  in  flames  at  all  four  corners. 

"For  this  ultimatum,  in  its  form  and  in  its  demands,  is  so  shameless, 
that  a  Servian  Government  that  should  humbly  retreat  before  this 
note,  would  have  to  reckon  with  the  possibility  of  being  driven  out 
by  the  masses  of  the  people  between  dinner  and  dessert.  .  .  . 

"It  was  a  crime  of  the  chauvinistic  press  of  Germany  to  egg  on  our 
dear  Ally  to  the  utmost  in  its  desire  for  war.  And  beyond  a  doubt, 
Herr  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  promised  Herr  Berchtold  our  support. 
But  Berlin  is  playing  a  game  as  dangerous  as  that  being  played 
by  Vienna." 

The  "Leipziger  Volkszeitung"  wrote  on  July  24th: 

"The  Austrian  military  party  has  staked  everything  on  one  card, 
for  in  no  country  in  the  world  has  national  and  military  chauvinism 
anything  to  lose.  In  Austria  chauvinistic  circles  are  particularly  bank- 
rupt; their  nationalistic  howls  are  a  frantic  attempt  to  cover  up 
Austria's  economic  ruin,  the  robbery  and  murder  of  war  to  fill  its 
coffers  ..." 

The  "Dresden  Volkszeitung"  said,  on  the  same  day : 

"Thus  far  the  war  maniacs  of  the  Wiener  Ballplatz  have  failed  to 
furnish  proof  that  would  justify  Austria  in  the  demands  it  has  made 
upon  Servia.  So  long  as  the  Austrian  Government  is  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  do  this,  it  places  itself,  by  its  provocative  and  insulting  attacks 
upon  Servia,  in  a  false  position  before  all  Europe.  And  even  if  Servia's 
guilt  was  proven,  even  if  the  assassination  in  Serajewo  had  actually 
been  prepared  under  the  eyes  of  the  Servian  Government,  the  demands 
made  in  the  note  are  far  in  excess  of  normal  bounds.  Only  the  most 
unscrupulous  war  lust  can  explain  such  demands  upon  another 
state.   .   ." 

The  "Muenchener  Post,"  on  July  25th,  wrote : 

"This  Austrian  note  is  a  document  unequalled  in  the  history  of  the 
last  two  centuries.  Upon  the  findings  of  an  investigation  whose  con- 
tents have,  till  now,  been  kept  from  the  European  public,  without 
court  proceedings  against  the  murderer  of  the  heir-presumptive  and 
his  spouse,  it  makes  demands  on  Servia,  the  acceptance  of  which 
would  mean  national  suicide  to  Servia.  .  ." 


%6  THE  CRISIS 

The  "Schleswig-Holstein  Volkszeitung"  declared,  on  the  24th  of 
Juiy: 

"Austria  is  provoking  Servia.  Austria-Hungary  wants  war,  and  is 
committing  a  crime  that  may  drown  all  Europe  in  blood.  .  .  Austria 
is  playing  va  banque.  It  dares  a  provocation  of  the  Servian  state  that 
the  latter,  if  it  is  not  entirely  defenseless,  will  certainly  refuse  to 
tolerate.   .   . 

"Every  civilized  person  must  protest  emphatically  against  the 
criminal  behavior  of  the  Austrian  rulers.  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
workers  above  all,  and  of  all  other  human  beings  who  honor  peace 
and  civilization,  to  try  their  utmost  to  prevent  the  consequences  of 
the  bloody  insanity  that  has  broken  out  in  Vienna." 

The  "Magdeburger  Volksstimme"  of  July  25th  said : 

"Any  Servian  Government  that  even  pretended  to  consider  these 
demands  seriously  would  be  swept  out  in  the  same  hour  by  the  Parlia- 
ment and  by  the  people. 

"The  action  of  Austria  is  the  more  despicable  because  Berchtold 
is  standing  before  the  Servian  Government  and  before  Europe  with 
empty  hands. 

"To  precipitate  a  war  such  as  this  at  the  present  time,  means  to 
invite  a  world  war.  To  act  thus  shows  a  desire  to  disturb  the  peace 
of  an  entire  hemisphere.  One  cannot  thus  make  moral  conquests,  or 
convince  non-participants  of  one's  own  righteousness.  It  can  be 
safely  assumed  that  the  press  of  Europe,  and  with  it  the  European 
governments,  will  call  the  vainglorious  and  senseless  Viennese  states- 
men energetically  and  unmistakably  to  order." 

On  July  24th  the  "Frankfurter  Volksstimme"  wrote: 

"Upheld  by  the  agitation  of  the  clerical  press,  which  mourns  in  Franz 
Ferdinand  its  best  friend  and  demands  that  his  death  be  avenged 
upon  the  Servian  people,  upheld  by  German  war  patriots  whose  lan- 
guage becomes  daily  more  contemptible  and  more  threatening,  the 
Austrian  Government  has  allowed  itself  to  be  driven  to  send  an  ulti- 
matum to  Servia  couched  in  language  that,  for  presumptuousness, 
leaves  little  to  be  desired;  containing  demands  whose  fulfillment  by 
the  Servian  Government  is  manifestly  impossible." 

On  the  same  day  the  "Elberf elder  Freie  Presse"  wrote : 
"A  telegram  of  the  semi-official  Wolf  Bureau  reports  the  terms  of 
the  demands  made   on   Servia  by  Austria.     From  these   it  may  be 


THE  CRISIS  *  27 

gathered  that  the  rulers  in  Vienna  are  pushing  toward  war  with 
all  their  might.  For  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  note  that  was 
presented  in  Belgrade  last  night  are  nothing  short  of  a  protectorate 
of  Austria  over  Servia.  It  is  eminently  necessary  that  the  diplomats 
of  Berlin  make  the  war  agitators  of  Vienna  und€rstand  that  Germany 
will  not  move  a  finger  to  support  such  outrageous  demands,  that  a 
withdrawal  of  the  threats  would  be  advisable." 

The  "Bergische  Arlbeiterstimme"  of  Solingen  writes: 

"Austria  demands  a  conflict  with  Servia,  and  uses  the  assassination 
at  Serajewo  as  a  pretext  for  putting  Servia  morally  in  the  wrong. 
But  the  whole  matter  has  b^en  approached  too  clumsily  to  influence 
European  public  opinion. 

"But  if  the  war  agitators  of  the  Wiener  Ballplatz  believe  that  their 
allies  of  the  Triple  Alliance,  Germany  and  Italy,  will  come  to  their 
assistance  in  a  conflict  in  which  Russia,  too,  will  be  involved,  they 
are  suffering  from  a  dangerous  illusion.  Italy  would  welcome  the 
weakening  of  Austria-Hungary,  its  rival  on  the  Adriatic  and  in  the 
Balkans,  and  would  certainly  decline  to  burn  its  fingers  to  help 
Austria.  In  Germany,  on  the  other  hand,  the  powers  that  be — even 
should  they  be  so  foolish  as  to  wish  it — would  not  dare  to  risk  the 
life  of  a  single  soldier  to  satisfy  the  criminal  lust  for  power  of  the 
Hapsburgers  without  arousing  the  fury  of  the  entire  people." 

Thus  the  entire  working-class  press,  without  exception,  judged 
the  war's  causes  a  week  before  its  outbreak.  Obviously  the  ques- 
tion was  one  of  neither  the  existence  nor  the  freedom  of  Ger- 
many, but  a  shamefid  adventure  of  the  Austrian  war  party ;  not 
a  question  of  self-defense,  national  protection  and  a  holy  war 
forced  upon  us  in  the  name  of  freedom,  but  a  bold  provocation,  an 
abominable  threat  against  foreign,  Servian,  independence  and 
liberty. 

What  was  it  that  happened  on  August  fourth  to  turn  this 
clearly  defined  and  so  unanimously  accepted  attitude  of  the 
Social-Democracy  upside  down?  Only  one  new  factor  had  ap- 
peared— the  White  Book  that  was  presented  to  the  Reichstag  by 
the  German  Government  on  that  day.  And  this  contained,  on 
page  4,  the  following: 


28  THE  CRISIS 

"Under  these  circumstances  Austria  must  say  to  itself  that  it 
is  incompatible  with  the  dignity  and  the  safety  of  the  monarchy 
to  remain  inactive  any  longer  in  face  of  the  occurrences  across 
the  border.  The  Austrian  Imperial  Government  has  notified  us 
of  this,  their  attitude,  and  has  begged  us  to  state  our  views.  Out 
of  a  full  heart  we  could  but  assure  our  Ally  of  our  agreement 
with  this  interpretation  of  conditions  and  assure  him  that  any 
action  that  would  seem  necessary  to  put  an  end  to  Servian 
attempts  against  the  existence  of  the  Austrian  monarchy  would 
meet  with  our  approval.  We  fully  realized  that  eventual  war 
measures  undertaken  by  Austria  must  bring  Russia  ioto  the  situ- 
ation and  that  we,  in  order  to  carry  out  our  duty  as  ally,  might 
be  driven  into  war.  But  we  could  not,  realizing  as  we  did  that 
the  most  vital  interests  of  Austria-Hungary  were  threatened, 
advise  our  ally  to  adopt  a  policy  of  acquiescence,  that  could  not 
possibly  be  brought  into  accord  with  its  dignity,  nor  could  we 
refuse  to  lend  our  aid  in  this  attitude. 

"And  we  were  particularly  prevented  from  taking  this  stand  by 
the  fact  that  the  persistent  subversive  Serbian  agitation  serious- 
ly jeopardized  us.  If  the  Serbians  had  been  permitted,  with  the 
aid  of  Russia  and  France,  to  continue  to  threaten  the  existence 
of  the  neighboring  monarchy,  there  would  have  ensued  a  gradual 
collapse  of  Austria  and  a  subjection  of  all  the  Slavic  races  under 
the  Russian  sceptre,  which  would  have  rendered  untenable  the 
situation  of  the  Germanic  race  in  Central  Europe.  A  morally 
weakened  Austria,  succumbing  before  the  advance  of  Russian 
Panslavism,  would  no  longer  be  an  ally  on  which  we  could  count 
and  depend,  as  we  are  obliged  to  do  in  view  of  the  increasingly 
menacing  attitude  of  our  neighbors  to  the  East  and  to  the  West 
We  therefore  gave  Austria  a  free  hand  in  her  proceedings  against 
Serbia.    We  have  had  no  share  in  the  preparations." 

These  were  the  words  that  lay  before  the  social-democratic 
Reichstag  group  on  August  4th,  the  only  important  and  deter- 


THE  CRISIS  29 

mining  phrases  in  the  entire  White  Book,  a  concise  declaration  of 
the  German  Government  beside  which  all  other  yellow,  grey,  blue, 
orange  books  on  the  diplomatic  passages  that  preceded  the  war 
and  its  most  immediate  causes  become  absolutely  irrevelant  and 
insignificant.  Here  the  Reichstag  group  had  the  key  to  a  correct 
judgment  of  the  situation  in  hand.  The  entire  social-democratic 
press,  a  week  before,  had  cried  out  that  the  Austrian  ultimatum 
was  a  criminal  provocation  of  the  world  war  and  demanded 
preventative  and  pacific  action  on  the  part  of  the  German  Gov- 
ernment. The  entire  socialist  press  assiuned  that  the  Austrian 
ultimatum  had  descended  upon  the  German  Government  like  a 
bolt  from  the  blue  as  it  had  upon  the  German  public.  But  now 
the  White  Book  declared,  briefly  and  clearly :  1.  That  the  Aus- 
trian Government  had  requested  German  sanction  before  taking 
a  final  step  against  Servia.  2.  That  the  German  Government 
clearly  understood  that  the  action  tmdertaken  by  Austria  would 
lead  to  war  with  Servia,  and  ultimately,  to  European  war.  3.  That 
the  German  Government  did  not  advise  Austria  to  give  in,  but 
on  the  contrary  declared  that  an  acquiescent,  weakened  Austria 
could  not  be  regarded  as  a  worthy  ally  of  Germany.  4.  That 
the  German  Government  assured  Austria,  before  it  advanced 
against  Servia,  of  its  assistance  under  all  circumstances,  in  case 
of  war,  and  finally,  5.  That  the  German  Government,  withal,  had 
not  reserved  for  itself  control  over  the  decisive  ultimatum  from 
Austria  to  Servia,  upon  which  the  whole  world  war  depended,  but 
had  left  to  Austria  "an  absolutely  free  hand." 

All  of  this  our  Reichstag  group  learned  on  August  4th.  And 
still  another  fact  it  learned  from  the  Government — ^that  German 
forces  already  had  invaded  Belgium.  And  from  all  this  the 
Social-Democratic  group  concluded  that  this  is  a  war  of  defense 
against  foreign  invasion,  for  the  existence  of  the  fatherland,  for 
"Kultur,"  a  war  for  liberty  against  Russian  despotism. 

Was  the  obvious  background  of  the  war,  and  the  scenery  that 
so  scantily  concealed  it,  was  the  whole  diplomatic  performance 


80  THE  CRISIS 

that  was  acted  out  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  with  its  clamor 
about  a  world  of  enemies,  all  threatening  the  life  of  Germany, 
all  moved  by  the  one  desire  to  weaken,  to  humiliate,  to  subjugate 
the  German  people  and  nation — were  all  these  things  such  a 
complete  surprise?  Did  these  factors  actually  call  for  more 
judgment,  more  critical  sagacity  than  they  possessed?  Nowhere 
was  this  less  true  than  of  our  Party.  It  had  already  gone  through 
two  great  German  wars,  and  in  both  of  them  had  received  mem- 
orable lessons. 

Even  a  poorly-informed  student  of  history  knows  that  the  war 
of  1866  against  Austria  was  systematically  prepared  by  Bismarck 
long  before  it  broke  out,  and  that  his  policies,  from  the  very 
beginning,  led  inevitably  to  a  rupture  and  to  war  with  Austria. 
The  Crown  Prince  himself,  the  later  Emperor  Frederick,  in  his 
memoirs  under  the  date  of  November  14th  of  that  year,  speaks 
of  this  purpose  of  the  Chancellor: 

"He  (Bismarck),  when  he  went  into  office,  was  firmly  resolved 
to  bring  Prussia  to  a  war  with  Austria,  but  was  very  careful 
not  to  betray  this  purpose,  either  at  that  time  or  on  any  other 
premature  occasion  to  his  Majesty,  until  the  time  seemed 
favorable." 

"Compare  with  this  confession,"  says  Auer  in  his  brochure 
'Die  Sedanfeier  und  die  Sozialdemokratie,'  "the  proclamation 
that  King  William  sent  out  'to  my  people.' " 

"The  Fatherland  is  in  danger!  Austria  and  a  large  part  of 
Germany  have  risen  in  arms  against  us. 

"It  is  only  a  few  years  ago  since  I,  of  my  own  free  will,  without 
thinking  of  former  misunderstandings,  held  out  a  fraternal  hand 
to  Austria  in  order  to  save  a  German  nation  from  foreign  dom- 
ination. But  my  hopes  have  been  blasted.  Austria  cannot  forget 
that  its  lords  once  ruled  Germany ;  it  refuses  to  see  in  the  younger, 
more  virile  Prussia  an  ally,  but  persists  in  regarding  it  as  a  dan- 
gerous rival.    Prussia — so  it  believes — ^must  be  opposed  in  all  its 


THE  CRISIS  31 

aims,  because  whatever  favors  Prussia  harms  Austria.  The  old 
unholy  jealousy  has  again  broken  out;  Prussia  is  to  be  weakened, 
destroyed,  dishonored.  All  treaties  with  Prussia  are  void,  Ger- 
man lords  are  not  only  called  upon,  but  persuaded,  to  sever  their 
alliance  with  Prussia.  Wherever  we  look,  in  Germany,  we  are 
surrounded  by  enemies  whose  war  cry  is — Down  with  Prussia!" 

Praying  for  the  blessings  of  heaven,  King  William  ordered  a 
general  day  of  prayer  and  penance  for  the  18th  of  July,  saying: 

"It  has  not  pleased  God  to  crown  with  success  my  attempts 
to  preserve  the  blessings  of  peace  for  my  people." 

Should  not  the  official  accompaniment  to  the  outbreak  of  the 
war  on  August  4th  have  awakened  in  the  minds  of  our  group 
vivid  memories  of  long  remembered  words  and  melodies?  Had 
they  completely  forgotten  their  party  history? 

But  not 'enough!  In  the  year  1870  there  came  the  war  with 
France,  and  history  has  united  its  outbreak  with  an  unforgettable 
occurrence;  the  Ems  dispatch,  a  document  that  has  become  a 
classic  byword  for  capitalist-government  art  in  war  making,  and 
which  marks  a  memorable  episode  in  our  party  history.  Was  it 
not  old  Liebknecht,  was  it  not  the  German  Social-Democracy  who 
felt  in  duty  bound,  at  that  time,  to  disclose  these  facts  and  to 
show  to  the  masses  "how  wars  are  made  ?" 

Making  war  simply  and  solely  for  the  protection  of  the  Father- 
land was,  by  the  way,  not  Bismarck's  invention.  He  only  carried 
out,  with  characteristic  unscrupulousness,  an  old,  well  known  and 
truly  international  recipe  of  capitalist  statesmanship.  When  and 
where  has  there  been  a  war  since  so-called  public  opinion  has 
played  a  role  in  governmental  calculations,  in  which  each  and 
every  belligerent  party  did  not,  with  a  heavy  heart,  draw  the 
sword  from  its  sheath  for  the  single  and  sole  purpose  of  defend- 
ing its  Fatherland  and  its  own  righteous  course  from  the  shameful 
attacks  of  the  enemy?  This  legend  is  as  inextricably  a  part  of 
the  game  of  war  as  powder  and  lead.  The  game  is  old.  Only, 
that  the  Social-Deraocra:tic  Party  should  play  it  is  new. 


THE  CRISIS 


CHAPTER  III. 

Our  Party  should  have  been  prepared  to  recognize  the  real 
aims  of  this  war,  to  meet  it  without  surprise,  to  judge  it  by  its 
deeper  relationship  according  to  their  wide  political  experience. 
The  events  and  forces  that  led  to  August  4th,  1914,  were  no 
secrets.  The  world  had  been  preparing  for  decades,  in  broad 
daylight,  in  the  widest  publicity,  step  by  step  and  hour  by  hour, 
for  the  world  war.  And  if  today  a  number  of  Socialists  threaten 
with  horrible  destruction  the  "secret  diplomacy"  that  has  brewed 
this  deviltry  behind  the  scenes,  they  are  ascribing  to  these  poor 
wretdies  a  magic  power  that  they  little  deserve,  just  as  the  Boto- 
kude  whips  his  fetish  for  the  outbreak  of  a  storm.  The  so-called 
captains  of  nations  are,  in  this  war,  as  at  all  times,  merely  chess- 
men, moved  by  all-powerful  historic  events  and  forces,  on  the 
surface  of  capitalist  society.  If  ever  there  were  persons  capable 
of  understanding  these  events  and  occurrences,  it  was  the  mem- 
bers of  the  German  Social-Democracy. 

Two  lines  of  development  in  recent  history  lead  straight  to 
the  present  war.  One  has  its  origin  in  the  period  when  the  so- 
called  national  states,  i.  e.  the  modern  states,  were  first  constituted, 
from  the  time  of  the  Bismarckian  war  against  France.  The  war 
of  1870,  which,  by  the  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  threw  the 
French  Republic  into  the  arms  of  Russia,  split  Europe  into  two 
opposing  camps  and  opened  up  a  period  of  insane  competitive 
armament,  first  piled  up  the  fire-brands  for  the  present  world 
conflagration.  Bismarck's  troops  were  still  stationed  in  France 
when  Marx  wrote  to  the  "Braunschweiger  Ausschuss": 

"He  who  is  not  deafened  by  the  momentary  clamor  and  is  not 
interested  in  deafening  the  German  people,  must  see  that  the  war 
of  1870  carries  with  it,  of  necessity,  a  war  between  Germany  and 
Russia,  just  as  the  war  of  1866  bore  the  war  of  1870.  I  say 
of  necessity,  unless  the  unlikely  should  happen,  unless  a  revolu- 


THE  CRISIS  33 

tion  breaks  out  in  Russia  before  that  time.  K  this  does  not  occur, 
a  war  between  Germany  and  Russia  may  even  now  be  regarded 
as  'un  fait  accompli.'  It  depends  entirely  upon  the  attitude  of  the 
German  victor  to  determine  whether  this  war  has  been  useful  or 
dangerous.  If  they  take  Alsace-Lorraine,  then  France  with 
Russia  will  arm  against  Germany.  It  is  superfluous  to  point  out 
the  disastrous  consequences." 

At  that  time  this  prophecy  was  laughed  down.  The  bonds 
which  united  Russia  and  Prussia  seemed  so  strong  that  it  was 
considered  madness  to  believe  in  a  union  of  autocratic  Russia  with 
Republican  France.  Those  who  supported  this  conception  were 
laughed  at  as  madmen.  And  yet  everything  that  Marx  has 
prophesied  has  happened,  to  the  last  letter.  "For  that  is,"  says 
Auer  in  his  Sedanfeier,  "social-democratic  politics,  seeing  things 
clearly  as  they  are,  and  difTering  therein  from  the  day-by-day 
politics  of  the  others,  bowing  blindly  down  before  every  momen- 
tary success." 

This  must  not  be  misunderstood  to  mean  that  the  desire  for 
revenge  for  the  robbery  accomplished  by  Bismarck  has  driven 
the  French  into  a  war  with  Germany,  that  the  kernel  of  the 
present  war  is  to  be  found  in  the  much  discussed  "revenge  for 
Alsace-Lorraine."  This  is  the  convenient  nationaHst  legend  of 
the  German  war  agitator,  who  creates  fables  of  a  darkly-brooding 
France  that  "cannot  forget"  its  defeat,  just  as  the  Bismarckian 
press-savants  ranted  of  the  dethroned  Princess  Austria  who 
could  not  forget  her  erstwhile  superiority  over  the  charming  Cin- 
derella Prussia.  As  a  matter  of  fact  revenge  for  Alsace- 
Lorraine  has  become  the  theatrical  property  of  a  couple  of 
patriotic  clowns,  the  "Lion  de  Belfort"  nothing  more  than  an 
ancient  survival. 

The  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  long  ago  ceased  to  play  a 
role  in  French  politics,  being  superseded  by  new,  more  pressing 
cares;  and  neither  the  government  nor  any  serious  party  in 
France  thought  of  a  war  with  Germany  because  of  these  terri- 


34  THE  CRISIS 

tories.  If,  nevertheless,  the  Bismarck  heritage  has  become  the  fire- 
brand that  started  this  world  conflagration,  it  is  rather  in  the 
sense  of  having  driven  Germany  on  the  one  hand,  and  France, 
and  with  it  all  of  Europe,  on  the  other,  along  the  downward 
path  of  military  competition,  of  having  brought  about  the  Franco- 
Russian  alliance,  of  having  united  Austria  with  Germany  as  an 
inevitable  consequence.  This  gave  to  Russian  Czarism  a  tremen- 
dous prestige  as  a  factor  in  European  politics.  Germany  and 
France  have  systematically  fawned  before  Russia  for  her  favor. 
At  that  time  the  links  were  forged  that  united  Germany  with 
Austria-Hungary,  whose  strength,  as  the  words  quoted  from  the 
"White  Book"  show,  lie  in  their  "brotherhood  in  arms,"  in  the 
present  war. 

Thus  the  war  of  1870  brought  in  its  wake  the  outward  political 
grouping  of  Europe  about  the  axes  of  the  Franco-German 
antagonism,  and  established  the  rule  of  militarism  in  the  lives  of 
the  European  peoples.  Historical  development  has  given  to  this 
rule  and  to  this  grouping  an  entirely  new  content.  The  second 
line  that  leads  to  the  present  world  war,  and  which  again  bril- 
liantly justifies  Marx's  prophecy,  has  its  origin  in  international  oc- 
currences that  Marx  did  not  live  to  see,  in  the  imperialist  develop- 
ment of  the  last  25  years. 

The  growth  of  capitalism,  spreading  out  rapidly  over  a  recon- 
stituted Europe  after  the  war  period  of  the  60s  and  70s,  particu- 
larly after  the  long  period  of  depression  that  followed  the  in- 
flation and  the  panic  of  the  year  1873,  reaching  an  unnatural 
zenith  in  the  prosperity  of  the  90s,  opened  up  a  new  period  of 
storm  and  danger  among  the  nations  of  Europe.  They  were 
competing  in  their  expansion  toward  the  non-capitalist  countries 
and  zones  of  the  world.  As  early  as  the  80s  a  strong  tendency 
toward  colonial  expansion  became  apparent.  England  secured 
control  of  Egypt  and  created  for  itself,  in  South  Africa,  a  power- 
ful colonial  empire.  France  took  possession  of  Tunis  in  North 
Africa  and  Tonkin  in  East  Asia;  Italy  gained  a   foothold  in 


THE  CRISIS  35 

Abyssinia ;  Russia  accomplished  its  conquests  in  Central  Asia  and 
pushed  forward  into  Manchuria ;  Germany  won  its  first  colonies 
in  Africa  and  in  the  South  Sea,  and  the  United  States  joined 
the  circle  when  it  procured  the  Phillipines  with  "interests"  in 
Eastern  Asia.  This  period  of  feverish  conquests  has  brought  on, 
beginning  with  the  Chinese- Japanese  War  in  1895,  a  practically 
uninterrupted  chain  of  bloody  wars,  reaching  its  height  in  the 
great  Chinese  invasion,  and  closing  with  the  Russo-Japanese  War 
of  1904. 

All  these  occurrences,  coming  blow  upon  blow,  created  new, 
extra-European  antagonisms  on  all  sides :  between  Italy  and  France 
in  Northern  Africa,  between  France  and  England  in  Egypt,  be- 
tween England  and  Russia  in  Central  Asia,  between  Russia  and 
Japan  in  Eastern  Asia,  between  Japan  and  England  in  China, 
between  the  United  States  and  Japan  in  the  Pacific  Ocean — a 
very  restless  ocean,  full  of  sharp  conflicts  and  temporary  alliances, 
of  tension  and  relaxation,  threatening  every  few  years  to  break 
out  into  a  war  between  European  powers.  It  was  clear  to  every- 
body, therefore,  (1)  that  the  secret  underhand  war  of  each 
capitalist  nation  against  every  other,  on  the  backs  of  Asiatic  and 
African  j)eoples  must  sooner  or  later  lead  to  a  general  reckoning, 
that  the  wind  that  was  sown  in  Africa  and  Asia,  would  return  to 
Europe  as  a  terrific  storm,  the  more  certainly  since  increased 
armament  of  the  European  States  was  the  constant  associate  of 
these  Asiatic  and  African  occurrences;  (2)  that  the  European 
world  war  would  have  to  come  to  an  outbreak  as  soon  as  the 
partial  and  changing  conflicts  between  the  imperialist  states 
found  a  centralized  axis,  a  conflict  of  sufficient  magnitude  to 
group  them,  for  the  time  being,  into  large,  opposing  factions. 
This  situation  was  created  by  the  appearance  of  German  im- 
perialism. 

In  Germany  one  may  study  the  development  of  imperialism, 
crowded  as  it  was  into  the  shortest  possible  space  of  time,  in 
concrete  form.     The  unprecedented  rapidity  of  German  indus- 


36  THE  CRISIS 

trial  and  commercial  development  since  the  foundation  of  the 
Empire,  brought  out  during  the  80s  two  characteristically 
peculiar  forms  of  capitalist  accumulation;  the  most  pronounced 
growth  of  monopoly  in  Europe  and  the  best  developed  and  most 
concentrated  banking  system  in  the  whole  world.  The  monop- 
olies have  organized  the  steel  and  iron  industry,  i.  e.,  the  branch 
of  capitalist  endeavor  most  interested  in  government  orders,  in 
militaristic  equipment  and  in  imperialistic  undertakings  (railroad 
building,  the  exploitation  of  mines,  etc.)  into  the  most  influential 
factor  in  the  nation.  The  latter  has  cemented  the  money  in- 
terests into  a  firmly  organized  whole,  with  the  greatest,  most 
virile  energy,  creating  a  power  that  autocratically  rules  the 
industry,  commerce  and  credit  of  the  nation,  dominant  in  private 
as  well  as  public  affairs,  boundless  in  its  powers  of  expansion, 
ever  hungry  for  profit  and  activity,  impersonal,  and  therefore 
liberal-minded,  reckless  and  unscrupulous,  international  by  its 
very  nature,  ordained  by  its  capacities  to  use  the  world  as  its 
stage. 

Germany  is  under  a  personal  regime,  with  strong  initiative  and 
spasmodic  activity,  with  the  weakest  kind  of  parliamentarism, 
incapable  of  opposition,  uniting  all  capitalist  strata  in  the  sharp- 
est opposition  to  the  working  class.  It  is  obvious  that  this  live, 
unhampered  imperialism,  coming  upon  the  world  stage  at  a  time 
when  the  world  was  practically  divided  up,  with  gigantic  ap- 
petites, soon  became  an  irresponsible  factor  of  general  unrest. 

This  was  already  foreshadowed  by  the  radical  upheaval  that 
took  place  in  the  military  policies  of  the  Empire  at  the  end  of 
90's.  At  that  time  two  naval  budgets  were  introduced  which 
doubled  the  naval  power  of  Germany  and  provided  for  a  naval 
program  covering  almost  two  decades.  This  meant  a  sweeping 
change  in  the  financial  and  trade  policy  of  the  nation.  In  the 
first  place,  it  involved  a  striking  change  in  the  foreign  policy  of 
the  Empire.  The  policy  of  Bismarck  was  founded  upon  the 
principle  that  the  Empire  is  and  must  remain  a  land  power,  that 


THE  CRISIS  37 

the  German  fleet,  at  best,  is  but  a  very  dispensible  requisite  for 
coastal  defence.  Even  the  secretary  of  state,  Hollmann,  de- 
clared in  March,  1897,  in  the  Budget  Commission  of  the  Reich- 
stag: "We  need  no  navy  for  coastal  defence.  Our  coasts  pro- 
tect themselves,"  With  the  two  naval  bills  an  entirely  new 
program  was  promulgated :  on  land  and  sea,  Germany  first !  This 
marks  the  change  from  Bismarckian  continental  policies  to 
"Welt-Politik,"  from  the  defensive  to  the  offensive  as  the  end 
and  aim  of  Germany's  military  program.  The  language  of  these 
facts  was  so  unmistakable  that  the  Reichstag  itself  furnished  the 
necessary  commentary.  Lieber,  the  leader  of  the  Centrum  at 
that  time,  spoke  on  the  11th  of  March,  1896,  after  a  famo.us  speech 
of  the  emperor  on  the  occasion  of  the  25th  anniversary  of  the 
founding  of  the  German  Empire,  which  had  developed  the  new 
program  as  a  forerunner  to  the  naval  bills,  in  which  he  mentioned 
"shoreless  naval  plans"  against  which  Germany  must  be  pre- 
pared to  enter  into  active  opposition.  Another  Centrum  leader, 
Schadler,  cried  out  in  the  Reichstag  on  March  23rd,  1898,  when 
the  first  naval  bill  was  under  discussion,  "The  nation  believes  that 
we  cannot  be  first  on  land  and  first  on  sea.  You  answer,  gentle- 
men, that  is  not  what  we  want !  Nevertheless,  gentlemen,  you  are 
at  the  beginning  of  such  a  conception,  at  a  very  strong  begin- 
ning!" When  the  second  bill  came,  the  same  Schadler  declared 
in  the  Reischstag  on  the  fifth  of  February,  1900,  referring  to 
previous  promises  that  there  would  be  no  further  naval  bills, 
"and  today  comes  this  bill,  which  means  nothing  more  and  noth- 
ing less  than  the  inauguration  of  a  world  fleet,  as  a  basis  of 
support  for  world  policies,  by  doubling  our  navy  and  binding 
the  next  two  decades  by  our  demands."  As  a  matter  of  fact 
the  government  openly  defended  the  political  program  of  its  new 
course  of  action.  On  December  11th,  1899,  Von  Buelow,  at  that 
time  state  secretary  of  the  foreign  office,  in  a  defence  of  the 
second  naval  bill  stated,  "when  the  English  speak  of  *a  greater 
Britain,'  when  the  French  talk  of  *la  nouvelle  France,'  when 


38  THE  CRISIS 

the  Russians  open  up  Asia  for  themselves,  we  too  have  a  right  to 
aspire  to  a  greater  Germany.  If  we  do  not  create  a  navy  suffi- 
cient to  protect  our  trade,  our  natives  in  foreign  lands,  our  mis- 
sions and  the  safety  of  our  shores,  we  are  threatening  the  most 
vital  interests  of  our  nation.  In  the  coming  century  the  German 
people  will  be  either  the  hammer  or  the  anvil."  Strip  this  of  its 
coastal  defence  ornamentation,  and  there  remains  the  colossal 
program:  greater  Germany,  as  the  hammer  upon  other  nations. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  determine  the  direction  toward  which 
these  provocations,  in  the  main,  were  directed.  Germany  was  to 
become  the  rival  of  the  world's  great  naval  force — England. 
And  England  did  not  fail  to  understand.  The  naval  reform 
bills,  and  the  speeches  that  ushered  them  in,  created  a  lively  un- 
rest in  England,  an  unrest  that  has  never  again  subsided.  In 
March,  1910,  Lord  Robert  Cecil  said  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
during  a  naval  debate:  "I  challenge  any  man  to  give  me  a 
plausible  reason  for  the  tremendous  navy  that  Germany  is  build- 
ing up,  other  than  to  take  up  the  fight  against  England."  The 
fight  for  supremacy  on  the  ocean  that  lasted  for  one  and  a  half 
decades  on  both  sides  and  culminated  in  the  feverish  building  of 
dreadnoughts  and  super-dreadnoughts,  was,  in  efiFect,  the  war 
between  Germany  and  England.  The  naval  bill  of  December 
11,  1899,  was  a  declaration  of  war  by  Germany,  which  England 
answered  on  August  4,  1914. 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  fight  for  naval  supremacy  had 
nothing  in  common  with  the  economic  rivalry  for  the  world 
market.  The  English  "monopoly  of  the  world  market"  which 
ostensibly  hampered  German  industrial  development,  so  much 
discussed  at  the  present  time,  really  belongs  to  the  sphere  of 
those  war  legends  of  which  the  ever  green  French  "Revanche"  is 
^  the  most  useful.  This  "monopoly"  had  become  an  old  time 
fairy  tale,  to  the  lasting  regret  of  the  English  capitalists.  The 
industrial  development  of  France,  Belgium,  Italy,  Russia,  India 
and  Japan,  and  above  all,  of  Germany  and  America,  had  put  an 


THE  CRISIS  39 

« 

end  to  this  monopoly  of  the  first  half  of  the  19th  century.  Side 
by  side  with  England,  one  nation  after  another  stepped  into  the 
world  market,  capitalism  developed  automatically,  and  with' 
gigantic  strides,  into  world  economy. 

English  supremacy  on  the  sea,  which  has  robbed  so  many 
social-democrats  of  their  peaceful  sleep,  and  which,  it  seems  to 
these  gentlemen,  must  be  destroyed  to  preserve  international 
socialism,  had,  up  to  this  time,  disturbed  German  capitalism  so 
little  that  the  latter  was  able  to  grow  up  into  a  lusty  youth, 
with  bursting  cheeks,  under  its  "yoke."  Yes,  England  itself,  and 
its  colonies,  were  the  cornerstone  for  German  industrial  growth. 
And  similarly,  Germany  became,  for  the  English  nation,  its  most 
important  and  most  necessary  customer.  Far  from  standing  in 
each  other's  way,  British  and  German  capitalist  development 
were  mutually  highly  interdependent,  and  united  by  a  far-reach- 
ing system  of  division  of  labor,  strongly  augmented  by  England's 
free  trade  policy.  German  trade  and  its  interests  in  the  world 
market,  therefore,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  a  change  of 
front  in  German  politics  and  with  the  building  of  its  fleet. 

Nor  did  German  colonial  possessions  at  that  time  come  into 
conflict  with  the  English  control  of  the  seas.  German  colonies 
were  not  in  need  of  protection  by  a  first-class  sea  power.  No 
one,  certainly  not  England,  envied  Germany  her  possessions. 
That  they  were  taken  during  the  war  by  England  and  Japan, 
that  the  booty  had  changed  owners,  is  but  a  generally  accepted 
war  measure,  just  as  German  imperialist  appetites  clamor  for 
Belgium,  a  desire  that  no  man  outside  of  an  insane  asylum  would 
have  dared  to  express  in  time  of  peace.  Southeast  and  South- 
west Africa,  Wilhelmsland  or  Tsingtau  would  never  have 
caused  any  war,  by  land  or  by  sea,  between  Germany  and  Eng- 
land. In  fact,  just  before  the  war  broke  out,  a  treaty  regulating 
a  peaceable  division  of  the  Portuguese  colonies  in  Africa  between 
these  two  nations  had  been  practically  completed. 


40  THE  CRISIS 

When  Germany  unfolded  its  banner  of  naval  power  and  world 
policies  it  announced  the  desire  for  new  and  far  reaching  con- 
quest in  the  world  by  German  imperialism.  By  means  of  a  first 
class  aggressive  navy,  and  by  military  forces  that  increased  in 
a  parallel  ratio,  the  apparatus  for  a  future  policy  was  established, 
opening  wide  the  doors  for  unprecedented  possibilities.  Naval 
building  and  military  armaments  became  the  glorious  business  of 
German  industry,  opening  up  a  boundless  prospect  for  further 
operations  by  trust  and  bank  capital  in  the  whole  wide  world. 
Thus,  the  acquiescence  of  all  capitalist  parties  and  their  rallying 
under  the  flag  of  imperialism  was  assured.  The  Centrum  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  the  National  Liberals,  the  staunchest  de- 
fenders of  the  steel  and  iron  industry,  and,  by  adopting  the  naval 
bill  it  had  loudly  denounced  in  1900,  became  the  party  of  the 
government.  The  Progressives  trotted  after  the  Centrum  when 
the  successor  to  the  naval  bill — ^the  high-tariff  party — came  up; 
while  the  Junkers,  the  staunchest  opponents  of  the  "horrid  navy" 
and  of  the  Canal,  brought  up  the  rear  as  the  most  enthusiastic 
porkers  and  parasites  of  the  very  policy  of  sea-militarism  and 
colonial  robbery  they  had  so  vehemently  opposed.  The  Reich- 
stag election  of  1907,  the  so-called  Hottentot  Elections,  found 
the  whole  of  Germany  in  a  paroxism  of  imperialistic  enthusiasm, 
firmly  united  under  one  flag,  that  of  the  Germany  of  von  Buelow, 
the  Germany  that  felt  itself  ordained  to  play  the  role-of  the  ham- 
mer in  the  world.  These  elections,  with  their  spiritual  progrom 
atmosphere,  were  a  prelude  to  the  Germany  of  August  4th,  a 
challenge  not  only  to  the  German  working  class,  but  to  other 
capitalist  nations  as  well,  a  challenge  directed  to  no  one  in 
particular,  a  mailed  fist  shaken  in  the  face  of  the  entire  world. 


THE  CRISIS  41 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Turkey  became  the  most  important  field  of  operations  of  Ger- 
man imperialism ;  the  "Deutsche  Bank,"  with  its  enormous  Asiatic 
business  interests,  about  which  all  German  oriental  policies  center, 
became  its  pacemaker.  In  the  50's  and  60's  Asiatic  Turkey 
worked  chiefly  with  English  capital,  which  built  the  railroad  from 
Smyrna  and  leased  the  first  stretch  of  the  Anatolian  railroad, 
up  to  Ismid.  In  1888  German  capital  appeared  upon  the  scene 
and  procured  from  Abdul  Hamid  the  control  of  the  railroad 
that  English  capital  had  built  and  the  franchise  for  the  new 
stretch  from  Ismid  to  Angora  and  branch  lines  to  Scutari,  Brussa, 
Konia  and  Kaizarili.  In  1899  the  Deutsche  Bank  secured  con- 
cessions for  the  building  and  operation  of  a  harbor  and  improve- 
ments in  Hardar  Pasha,  and  the  sole  control  over  trade  and  tariff 
collections  in  the  harbor.  In  1901  the  Turkish  Government 
turned  over  to  the  Deutsche  Bank  the  concession  for  the  great 
Bagdad  railroad  to  the  Persian  Gulf,  in  1907  for  the  drainage 
of  the  Sea  of  Karaviran  and  the  irrigation  of  the  Koma  plain. 

The  reverse  of  this  wonderful  work  of  "peaceful  culture"  is 
the  "peaceful"  and  wholesale  ruin  of  the  farming  population  of 
Asia  Minor.  The  cost  of  this  tremendous  undertaking  was 
advanced,  of  course,  by  the  Deutsche  Bank  on  the  security  of  a 
widely  diversified  system  of  public  indebtedness.  Turkey  will 
be,  to  all  eternity,  the  debtor  of  Messrs.  Siemens,  Gwinner, 
Helfferich,  etc.,  as  it  was  formerly  that  of  English,  French  and 
Austrian  capital.  This  debtor,  now,  was  forced  not  only  to 
squeeze  enormous  sums  out  of  the  state  to  pay  the  interest  on 
these  loans,  but,  in  addition,  to  guarantee  a  net  income  upon  the 
railway  thus  built.  The  most  modern  methods  of  transportation 
were  grafted  upon  a  primitive,  in  many  cases  purely  agricultural, 
population.  From  the  unfruitful  soil  of  farming  sections  that 
had  been    exploited    unscrupulously,    for  years,    by  an  oriental 


42  THE  CRISIS 

despotism,  producing  scarcely  enough  to  feed  the  jJopulation 
after  the  huge  state  debts  had  been  paid,  it  is  practically  impossi- 
ble to  secure  the  profits  demanded  by  the  railroads.  Freight  and 
traveling  are  exceedingly  undeveloped,  since  the  industrial  and 
cultural  character  of  the  region  is  most  primitive,  and  can  im- 
prove only  at  a  slow  rate.  The  deficit  that  must  be  paid  to 
raise  the  required  profit  is,  therefore,  paid  by  the  Turkish  Gov- 
ernment in  the  form  of  a  so-called  kilometer  guarantee.  Euro- 
pean Turkey  was  built  up  according  to  this  system  by  Austrian 
and  French  capital,  and  the  same  system  has  been  adopted  by  the 
Deutsche  Bank  in  its  operations  in  Asiatic  Turkey.  As  bond  and 
surety  that  the  subsidy  will  be  paid,  the  Turkish  Government 
has  handed  over  to  the  representatives  of  European  capital,  the 
so-called  Executive  Board  in  control  of  public  debt,  the  main 
source  of  Turkish  national  income,  which  has  given  to  the 
Deutsche  Bank  the  right  to  collect  the  tithe  from  a  number  of 
provinces.  In  this  way,  for  instance,  the  Turkish  Govern- 
ment paid,  from  1893  to  1910,  for  the  railroad  to  Angora  and 
for  the  line  from  Eskishehir  to  Konia,  a  subsidy  of  about 
9,000,000  Frcs.  The  tithes  thus  leased  by  the  Turkish  Govern- 
ment to  its  European  creditors  are  ancient  payments  rendered  in 
produce  such  as  corn,  sheep,  silk,  etc.  They  are  not  collected 
directly  but  through  sub-lessees,  somewhat  similar  to  the  famous 
tax-collectors,  so  notorious  in  pre-revolutionary  France,  the  state 
selling  the  right  to  raise  the  amount  requjred  from  each  vilayet 
(province)  by  auction,  against  cash  payment.  When  the  specu- 
lator or  company  has  thus  procured  the  right  to  collect  the  tithe 
of  a  vilayet,  it,  in  turn,  sells  the  tithe  of  each  individual  sanjak 
(district)  to  other  speculators,  who  again  divide  their  portion 
among  a  veritable  band  of  smaller  agents.  Since  each  one 
of  these  collectors  must  not  only  cover  his  own  expenses  but 
secure  as  large  a  profit  as  possible  besides,  the  tithe  grows  like 
a  landslide  as  it  approaches  the  farmer.  If  the  lessee  has  been 
mistaken  in  his  calculation,  he  seeks  to  recompense  himself  at 


THE  CRISIS  43 

the  expense  of  the  farmer.  The  latter,  practically  always  in 
debt,  waits  impatiently  for  the  time  when  he  can  sell  his  crop. 
But  after  his  grain  is  cut  he  must  frequently  wait  for  weeks  be- 
fore the  tithe  collector  comes  to  take  his  portion.  The  collector, 
who  is  usually  graindealer  as  well,  exploits  this  need  of  the 
farmer  whose  crop  threatens  to  rot  in  the  field,  and  persuades 
him  to  sell  at  a  reduced  price,  knowing  full  well  that  it  will  be 
easy  to  secure  the  assistance  of  public  officials  and  particularly 
of  the  muktar  (town  mayor)  against  the  dissatisfied.  When  no 
tax-collector  can  be  found  the  government  itself  collects  the 
tithe  in  produce,  puts  it  into  storage  houses  and  turns  it  over 
as  part  payment  to  the  capitalists.  This  is  the  inner  mechanism 
of  the  "industrial  regeneration  of  Turkey"  by  European  capital. 

Thus  a  twofold  purpose  is  accomplished.  The  farming  popu- 
lation of  Asia  Minor  becomes  the  object  of  a  well  organized 
process  of  exploitation  in  the  interest  of  European,  in  this  case 
German,  financial  and  industrial  capital.  This  again  promotes 
rhe  growth  of  the  German  sphere  of  interest  in  Turkey  and  lays 
the  foundation  for  Turkey's  "political  protection."  At  the  same 
time  the  instrument  that  carries  out  the  exploitation  of  the  farm- 
ing population,  the  Turkish  Government,  becomes  the  willing 
tool  and  vassal  of  Germany's  foreign  policies.  For  many  year<5 
Turkish  finance,  tariff  policies,  taxation  and  state  expenditures 
have  been  under  European  control.  German  influence  has  made 
itself  particularly  felt  in  the  Turkish  military  organization. 

It  is  obvious  from  the  foregoing,  that  the  interests  of  German 
imperialism  demand  the  protection  of  the  Turkish  State,  to  the 
extent  at  least  of  preventing  its  complete  disintegration.  The 
liquidation  of  Turkey  would  mean  its  division  between  England, 
Russia,  Italy,  and  Greece  among  others  and  the  basis  for  a  large- 
scale  operation  by  German  capital  would  vanish.  Moreover,  an 
extraordinary  increase  in  the  power  of  Russia,  England  and  the 
Mediterranean  States  would  result.  For  (jerman  imperialism, 
therefore,  the  preservation  of  this  accommodating  apparatus  of 


44  THE  CRISIS 

the  "independent  Turkish  State,"  the  "integrity"  of  Turkey  is  a 
matter  of  necessity.  And  this  necessity  will  exist  until  such  time 
as  this  state  will  fall,  having  been  consumed  from  within  by 
German  capital,  as  was  Egypt  by  England  and  more  recently 
Morocco  by  France,  into  the  lap  of  Germany.  The  well  known 
spokesman  of  German  imperialism,  Paul  Rohrbach,  expressed  this 
candidly  and  honestly  when  he  said: 

"In  the  very  nature  of  things  Turkey,  surrounded  on  all  sides 
by  envious  neighbors,  must  seek  the  support  of  a  power  that  has 
practically  no  territorial  interests  in  the  Orient.  That  power  is 
Germany.  We,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  at  a  disadvantage 
if  Turkey  should  disappear.  If  Russia  and  England  fall  heir  to 
the  Turkish  State,  obviously  it  will  mean  to  both  of  these  states 
a  considerable  increase  in  power.  But  even  if  Turkey  should 
be  so  divided  that  we  should  also  secure  an  extensive  portion, 
it  would  mean  for  us  endless  difficulties.  Russia,  England,  and 
in  a  certain  sense  France  and  Italy  as  well,  are  neighbors  of 
present  Turkish  possessions  and  are  in  a  position  to  hold  and 
defend  their  portion  by  land  and  by  sea.  But  we  have  no  direct 
connection  with  the  Orient.  A  German  Asia  Minor  or  Mesopo- 
tamia can  become  a  reality  only  if  Russia,  and  in  consequence 
France  as  well,  should  be  forced  to  relinquish  their  present  politi- 
cal aims  and  ideals,  i.  e.,  if  the  world-war  should  take  a  decisive 
turn  in  favor  of  German  interests." — {The  War  and  German 
Policy,  page  36). 

Germany  swore  solemnly  on  November  8th,  1898,  in  Damascus, 
by  the  shadow  of  the  great  Saladin,  to  protect  and  to  preserve 
the  Mohammedan  world  and  the  green  flag  of  the  Prophet,  and 
in  so  doing  strengthened  the  regime  of  the  bloody  Sultan  Abdul 
Hamid  for  over  a  decade.  It  has  been  able,  after  a  short  period 
of  estrangement,  to  exert  the  same  influence  upon  the  Young 
Turk  regime.  Aside  from  conducting  the  profitable  business  of 
the  Deutsche  Bank,  the  German  mission  busied  itself  chiefly  with 
the   reorganization   and  training  of   Turkish   militarism,   under 


THE  CRISIS  45 

German  instructors  with  von  der  Goltz  Pascha  at  the  head.  The 
modernization  of  the  army,  of  course,  piled  new  burdens  upon 
the  Turkish  farmers,  but  it  was  a  splendid  business  arrangement 
for  Krupp  and  the  Deutsche  Bank.  At  the  same  time  Turkish 
militarism  became  entirely  dependent  upon  Prussian  militarism, 
and  became  the  centre  of  German  ambitions  in  the  Mediterranean 
and  in  Asia  Minor. 

That  this  "regeneration"  of  Turkey  is  a  purely  artificial  at- 
tempt to  galvanize  a  corpse,  the  fate  of  the  Turkish  revolutions 
best  shows.  In  the  first  stage,  while  ideal  considerations  stii) 
predominated  in  the  Young  Turkish  movement,  when  it  was  stiU 
fired  with  ambitious  plans  and  illusions  of  a  real  springtime  of 
life  and  of  a  rejuvenation  for  Turkey,  its  political  sympathies 
were  decidedly  in  favor  of  England.  This  country  seemed  to 
them  to  represent  the  ideal  state  of  modern  liberal  rule,  while 
(Germany,  which  had  so  long  played  the  role  of  protector  of  the 
holy  regime  of  the  old  sultan  was  felt  to  be  its  natural  opponent. 
For  a  while  it  seemed  as  if  the  revolution  of  1908  would  mc.in 
the  bankruptcy  of  German  oriental  policies.  It  seemed  certain 
that  the  overthrow  of  Abdul  Hamid  would  go  hand  in  hand 
with  the  downfall  of  German  influence.  As  the  Young  Turks 
assumed  power,  however,  and  showed  their  complete  inability  to 
carry  out  any  modern  industrial,  social  or  national  reform  on  a 
large  scale,  as  the  counter-revolutionary  hoof  became  more  and 
more  apparent,  they  turned  of  necessity  to  the  tried  and  proven 
methods  of  Abdul  Hamid,  which  meant  periodic  bloody  massacres 
of  oppressed  peoples,  goaded  on  until  they  flew  at  each  other's 
throats,  boundless,  truly  oriental  exploitation  of  the  farming 
population  became  the  foundation  of  the  nation.  The  artificial 
restoration  of  rule  by  force  again  became  the  most  important 
consideration  for  "Young  Turkey"  and  the  traditional  alliance 
of  Abdul  Hamid  with  Germany  was  reestablished  as  the  deciding 
factor  in  the  foreign  policy  of  Turkey. 

The  multiplicity  of  national    problems    that    threaten  to  dis- 


46  THE  CRISIS 

rupt  the  Turkish  nation  make  its  regeneration  a  hopeless  under- 
taking. The  Armenian,  Curdian,  Syrian,  Arabian,  Greek,  and 
(up  to  the  most  recent  times)  the  Albanian  and  Macedonian 
questions,  the  manifold  economic  and  social  problems  that  exist 
in  the  different  parts  of  the  realm,  are  a  serious  menace.  The 
growth  of  a  strong,  a  hopeful,  capitalism  in  the  neighboring 
Balkan  states  and  the  long  years  of  destructive  activity  of  inter- 
national capital  and  international  diplomacy  stamp  every  attempt 
to  hold  together  this  rotting  pile  of  timber  as  nothing  but  a  re- 
actionary undertaking.  This  has  long  been  apparent,  particularly 
to  the  German  Social-Democracy.  As  early  as  1896,  at  the 
time  of  the  Cretan  uprising,  the  German  Party  press  was  filled 
with  long  discussions  on  the  Oriental  problem,  that  led  to  a 
revision  of  the  attitude  taken  by  Marx  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean 
war  and  to  the  definite  repudiation  of  the  "integrity  of  Turkey" 
as  a  heritage  of  European  reaction.  Nowhere  was  the  Young 
Turkish  regime,  its  inner  sterility  and  its  counter-revolutionary 
character,  so  quickly  and  so  thoroughly  recognized  as  in  the  Ger- 
man Social-Democratic  press.  It  was  a  real  Prussian  idea,  this 
building  of  strategic  railroads  for  rapid  mobilization,  this  sending 
of  capable  military  instructors  to  prop  up  the  cnmibling  edifice 
of  the  Turkish  State. 

In  191^  the  Young  Turkish  regiment  was  forced  to  abdicate 
to  the  counter-revolution.  Characteristically,  the  first  act  of 
"Turkish  regeneration"  in  this  war  was  a  coup  d'etat,  the  annihi- 
lation of  the  constitution.  In  this  respect  too  tTiere  was  a  formal 
leturn  to  the  rule  of  Abdul  Hamid. 

The  first  Balkan  war  brought  bankruptcy  to  Turkish  militar- 
ism, in  spite  of  German  training.  And  the  present  war,  into 
which  Turkey  was  precipitated  as  Germany's  "charge,"  will  lead, 
with  inevitable  fatality,  to  the  further  or  to  the  final  liquida- 
tion of  the  Turkish  Empire. 

The  position  of  German  militarism — and  its  essence,  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Deutsche  Bank — has  brought  the  German  Empire  in 


THE  CRISIS  47 

the  Orient  into  opposition  to  all  other  nations.  Above  all  to 
England.  The  latter  had  not  only  rival  business  relations  and 
fat  profits  in  Mesopotamia  and  Anatolia  which  were  forced  to 
retreat  before  their  German  rivals.  This  was  a  situation  that 
English  capitalism  grudgingly  accepted.  But  the  building  of 
strategic  railroad,  and  the  strengthening  of  Turkish  militarism 
under  German  influence  was  felt  by  England  to  be  a  sore  point, 
in  a  strategic  question  of  its  world  political  relations;  lying  as  it 
did  at  the  cross  roads  between  Central  Asia,  Persia  and  India,  on 
the  one  side,  and  Egypt  on  the  other. 

"England,"  writes  Rohrbach  in  his  Bagdadbahn,  "can  be  at- 
tacked and  mortally  wounded  on  land  in  Egypt.  The  loss  of 
Egypt  will  mean  to  England  not  only  the  loss  of  control  over  the 
Suez  Canal  and  its  connections  with  India  and  Asia,  but  probably 
the  sacrifice  of  its  possessions  in  Central  and  Eastern  Africa  as 
well.  A  Mohammedan  power  like  Turkey,  moreover,  could  exer- 
cise a  dangerous  influence  over  the  60  millions  of  Mohammedan 
subjects  of  England  in  India,  in  Afghanistan  and  Persia,  should 
Turkey  conquer  Egypt.  But  Turkey  can  subjugate  Egypt  only 
if  it  possesses  an  extended  system  of  railroads  in  Asia  Minor  and 
Syria,  if  by  an  extension  of  the  Anatalion  Railway  it  is  able 
to  ward  off  an  English  attack  upon  Mesopotamia,  if  it  increases 
and  improves  its  army,  if  its  general  economic  and  financial  con- 
ditions are  improved." 

And  in  his  The  War  and  German  Policies,  which  was  published 
after  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  he  says : 

"The  Bagdad  Railroad  was  destined  from  the  start  to  bring 
Constantinople  and  .the  military  strongholds  of  the  Turkish 
Empire  in  Asia  Minor  into  direct  connection  with  Syria  and  the 
provinces  on  the  Euphrates  and  on  the  Tigris.  Of  course  it  was 
to  be  foreseen  that  this  railway,  together  with  the  projected  and, 
partly  or  wholly,  completed  railroads  in  Syria  and  Arabia,  would 
make  it  possible  to  use  Turkish  troops  in  the  direction  of  Egypt. 
No  one  will  deny^that,  should  the  Turkish-German  alliance  re- 


48  THE  CRISIS 

main  in  force,  and  under  a  number  of  other  important  conditions 
whose  reaHzation  will  be  even  more  difficult  than  this  alliance, 
the  Bagdad  Railway  is  a  political  life  insurance  policy  for  Ger- 
many." 

Thus  the  semi-official  spokesman  of  German  imperialism  openly 
revealed  its  plan  and  its  aims  in  the  Orient.  Here  German  policies 
were  clearly  marked  out,  and  an  aggressive  fundamental  tend- 
ency most  dangerous  for  the  existing  balance  of  world  power, 
with  a  clearly  defined  point  against  England,  was  disclosed.  Ger- 
man oriental  policies  became  the  concrete  commentary  to  the 
naval  policy  inaugurated  in  1899. 

With  its  program  for  Turkish  integrity,  Germany  came  into 
conflict  with  the  Balkan  states,  whose  historic  completion  and 
inner  growth  are  dependent  upon  the  liquidation  of  European 
Turkey.  It  came  into  conflict  with  Italy,  finally,  whose  imperial- 
istic appetite  was  likewise  longing  for  Turkish  possessions.  At 
the  Morocco  Conference  at  Algeciras  in  1905,  Italy  already  sided 
with  England  and  France.  Six  years  later  the  Italian  expedi- 
tion to  Tripolis,  which  followed  the  Austrian  annexation  of 
Bosnia  and  gave  the  signal  for  the  Balkan  War,  already  indicated 
a  withdrawal  of  Italy,  foreshadowed  the  disruption  of  the  Triple 
Alliance  and  the  isolation  of  German  policies  on  this  side  as  well. 
The  other  tendency  of  German  expansionist  desires  in  the  west 
became  evident  in  the  Morocco  affair.  Nowhere  was  the  negation 
of  the  Bismarck  policy  in  Germany  more  clearly  shown.  Bis- 
marck, as  is  well  known,  supported  the  colonial  aspirations  of 
France  in  order  to  distract  its  attention  from  Alsace-Lorraine. 
The  new  course  of  Germany,  on  the  other  hand,  ran  exactly 
counter  to  French  colonial  expansion.  Conditions  in  Morocco 
were  quite  different  from  those  that  prevailed  in  Asiatic  Turkey. 
Germany  had  few  legitimate  interests  in  Morocco.  To  be  sure, 
German  imperialists  pufiFed  up  the  claims  of  the  German  firm  of 
Mannesmann,  which  had  made  a  loan  to  the  Moroccan  sultan 
and  demanded  mining  concessions  in  return,  into  a  national  issue. 


THE  CRISIS  49 

But  the  well  known  fact  that  both  of  these  rival  groups  in  Mo- 
rocco, the  Mannesmann  as  well  as  the  Krupp-Schneider  Company 
are  a  thoroughly  international  mixture  of  German,  French  and 
Spanish  capitalists,  prevents  anyone  from  seriously  speaking  of 
a  German  sphere  of  interest.  The  more  symptomatic  was  the 
determination  and  the  decisiveness  with  which  the  German 
Empire,  in  1905,«suddenly  announced  its  claim  to  participation 
in  the  regulation  of  Moroccan  affairs,  and  protested  against 
French  rule  in  Morocco.  This  was  the  first  world-political  clash 
with  France.  In  1895  Germany,  together  with  France  and  Rus- 
sia, assumed  a  threatening  attitude  toward  victorious  Japan  to 
prevent  it  from  exploiting  its  victory  over  China  at  Shimonoseki. 
Five  years  later  it  went  arm  in  arm. with  France  all  along  the 
line  on  a  plundering  expedition  against  China.  Morocco  caused 
a  radical  reorientation  in  Germany's  relations  with  France.  The 
Morocco  crisis  which,  in  the  seven  years  of  its  duration,  twice 
brought  Europe  to  the  verge  of  war  between  France  and  Ger- 
many, was  not  a  question  of  "revenge"  for  continental  conflicts 
between  the  two  nations.  An  entirely  new  conflict  had  arisen, 
German  imperialism  had  come  into  competition  with  that  of 
France.  In  the  end,  Germany  was  satisfied  with  the  French 
Congo  region,  and  in  accepting  this  admitted  that  it  had  no  spe- 
cial interests  to  protect  in  Morocco  itself.  This  very  fact  gave 
to  the  German  attack  in  Morocco  a  far  reaching  political  signifi- 
cance. The  very  indefinitiveness  of  its  tangible  aims  and  demands 
betrayed  its  insatiable  appetite,  the  seeking  and  feeling  for  prey — 
it  was  a  general  imperialistic  declaration  of  war  against  France. 
The  contrast  between  the  two  nations  here  was  brought  into 
the  limelight.  On  the  one  hand,  a  slow  industrial  development, 
a  stagnant  population,  a  nation  living  on  its  investments,  con- 
cerned chiefly  with  foreign  financial  business,  burdened  with  a 
large  number  of  colonial  possessions  that  it  could  hold  together 
only  with  the  utmost  difficulty.  On  the  other  hand,  a  mighty 
young  giant,  a  capitalism  forging  toward  the  first  place  among 


50  THE  CRISIS 

nations,  going  out  into  the  world  to  hunt  for  colonies,  English 
colonies  were  out  of  the  question.  So  the  hunger  of  German  im- 
perialism, besides  feeding  on  Asiatic  Turkey,  turned  at  once  to 
the  French  heritage.  The  French  colonies  moreover  were  a  con- 
venient bait  with  which  Italy  might  eventually  be  attracted  and 
repaid  for  Austrian  desires  of  expansion  on  the  Balkan  peninsula, 
and  be  thus  more  firmly  welded  into  the  Triple  Alliance  by  mutual 
business  interests.  The  demands  Germany  made  upon  French 
imperialism  were  exceedingly  disturbing,  especially  when  it  is 
remembered  that  Germany,  once  it  had  taken  a  foothold  in  any 
part  of  Morocco,  could  at  any  time  set  fire  to  the  entire  French 
North-African  possessions,  whose  inhabitants  were  in  a  chronic 
state  of  incipient  warfare  with  the  French  conquerors,  by  sup- 
plying them  with  ammunition.  Germany's  final  withdrawal  for 
suitable  compensation  did  away  with  this  immediate  danger.  But 
they  could  not  allay  the  general  disturbance  in  France  and  the 
world-political  conflict  that  had  been  created. 

Its  Morocco  policy  not  only  brought  Germany  into  conflict 
with  France  but  with  England  as  well.  Here  in  Morocco,  in  the 
immediate  neighborhood  of  Gibraltar,  the  second  important 
center  of  world-political  interests  of  the  British  Government, 
the  sudden  appearance  of  German  imperialism  with  its  demands, 
and  the  drastic  impresslveness  with  which  these  demands  were 
supported,  were  regarded  as  a  demonstration  against  England  as 
well.  Furthermore  the  first  formal  protest  of  1911  was  directed 
specifically  against  the  agreement  of  1904  between  England  and 
France  concerning  Egypt  and  Morocco.  Germany  insisted  briefly 
and  definitely  that  England  be  disregarded  In  all  further  regula- 
tions of  Moroccan  aflfalrs.  The  effect  that  such  a  demand  was 
certain  to  have  on  German-English  relations  is  obvious.  The 
situation  was  commented  upon  in  the  Frankfurter  Zeitung  of 
November  8,  1911,  by  a  London  correspondent: 

"This  is  the  outcome :  a  million  negroes  in  Congo,  a  great 
katzenjammer  and  a  furious  resentment  against  perfides  Albion. 


THE  CRISIS  51 

The  katzenjammer  Germany  will  live  down.  But  what  is  to 
become  of  our  relations  with  England?  As  they  stand  today 
matters  are  untenable.  According  to  every  historic  probability 
they  will  either  lead  to  something  worse,  that  is  war,  or  they 
will  have  to  be  speedily  patched  up .  .  .  The  trip  of  the  Panther 
was,  as  a  Berlin  correspondent  so  well  said  in  the  Frankfurter 
Zeitung  the  other  day,  a  dig  into  the  ribs  of  France  to  show  that 
Germany  is  still  here.  .  .  Concerning  the  effect  that  this  event 
would  create  here,  Berlin  cannot  possibly  entertain  the  slightest 
doubt.  Certainly  no  correspondent  in  London  was  for  a  moment 
in  doubt  that  England  would  stand  energetically  on  the  side  of 
France.  How  can  the  Norddeutsche  Allgemeine  Zeitung  still 
insist  that  Germany  must  treat  with  France  alone?  For  several 
hundred  years  Europe  has  been  the  scene  of  a  steadily  increasing 
interweaving  of  political  interests.  The  misfortune  of  one,  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  politics,  fills  some  with  joy,  others  with 
apprehension.  When  two  years  ago  Austria  had  its  difficulties 
with  Russia,  Germany  appeared  upon  the  scene  with  shimmering 
armor,  although  Vienna,  as  was  afterwards  stated,  would  have 
preferred  to  settle  matters  without  German  intervention.  It  is 
very  unlikely  that  England,  having  just  emerged  from  a  period 
of  anti-German  feeling,  should  consider  that  our  dealings  with 
France  are  none  of-  its  business.  In  the  last  analysis,  it  was  a 
question  of  might;  for  a  dig  in  the  ribs,  be  it  ever  so  friendly, 
is  a  very  tangible  matter.  For  no  one  can  be  quite  sure  when  a 
blow  on  the  teeth  may  follow.  Since  then  the  situation  has  be- 
come less  critical.  At  the  moment  when  Lloyd  George  spoke,  the 
danger  of  a  war  between  Germany  and  England  was  acute.  Are 
we  justified  in  expecting  a  different  attitude  from  Sir  Edward 
Grey  after  the  policies  that  he  and  his  followers  have  been 
pursuing?  If  Berlin  entertained  such  ideas  then  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  German  foreign  policies  have  been  weighed  and  found 
wanting." 

Thus  did  our  imperialistic  policies  create  sharp  conflicts  in 


62  THE  CRISIS 

Asia  Minor  and  in  Morocco,  between  England  and  Germany, 
between  Germany  and  France.  But  what  of  German  relations 
with  Russia?  In  the  murderous  spirit  that  took  possession  of 
the  German  public  during  the  first  weeks  of  the  war  everything 
seemed  credible.  The  German  populace  believed  that  Belgian 
women  had  gouged  out  the  eyes  of  the  German  wounded,  that 
Cossacks  ate  tallow  candles,  that  they  had  taken  infants  by  the 
legs  and  torn  them  to  pieces;  they  believed  that  Russia  aspired 
to  the  annexation  of  the  German  empire,  to  the  destruction  of 
German  "Kultur,"  to  the  introduction  of  absolutism  from  Kiel 
to  Munich,  from  the  Warthe  to  the  Rhine.  The  Social-Democratic 
Chemnitzer  Volksstimme  wrote  on  August  2nd: 

"At  this  moment  we  all  feel  it  our  duty  to  fight  first  against  the 
Russian  knout.  German  women  and  children  shall  not  become  the 
victims  of  Russian  bestiality,  German  territory  must  not  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  cossacks.  For  if  the  Entente  is  victorious,  not  the 
French  Republicans,  but  the  Russian  Tsar  will  rule  over  Germany. 
In  this  moment  we  defend  everything  that  we  possess  of  German 
culture  and  German  freedom  against  a  pitiless  and  barbarous  foe." 

On  the  same  day  the  Fraenkische  Tagespost  cried  out : 

"Shall  the  cossacks,  who  have  already  taken  possession  of  our 
border  towns,  in  their  onrush  on  our  country,  bring  destruction  to 
our  cities?  Shall  the  Russian  Czar,  whose  love  of  peace  the  Social- 
Democrats  refused  to  trust  even  on  the  day  when  his  peace  manifesto 
was  published,  who  is  the  worst  enemy  of  the  Russian  people  them- 
selves, rule  over  one  man  of  German  blood?" 

And  the  Koenigsberger  Volksseitung  wrote  on  August  3rd : 

"Not  one  of  us  can  doubt,  whether  he  is  liable  for  military  service 
or  not,  that  he  must  do  everything  to  keep  these  worthless  vandals 
from  our  borders  so  long  as  the  war  may  last.  For  if  they  should 
be  victorious,  thousands  of  our  comrades  will  be  condemned  to  hor- 
rible prison  sentences.  Under  the  Russian  scepter  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  self-expression  of  the  people,  no  social-democratic  press  is  al- 
lowed to  exist,  social-democratic  meetings  and  organizations  are  pro- 


THE  CRISIS  53 

hibited.  We  cannot  conceive  for  a  moment  the  possibility  of  a  Rus- 
sian victory.  While  still  upholding  our  opposition  to  war,  we  will  all 
work  together  to  protect  ourselves  against  these  vandals  that  rule 
the  Russian  nation." 

We  shall  later  enter  a  little  more  fully  into  the  relations  that 
exist  between  German  culture  and  Russian  Czarism.  They  form 
a  chapter  by  itself  in  the  position  of  the  German  Social- 
Democracy  on  the  war.  This  much  may  be  said  now,  one  might 
with  as  much  justification  assume  that  the  Czar  desires  to  annex 
Europe,  or  the  moon,  as  to  speak  of  his  desire  to  annex  Germany. 
In  the  present  war  only  two  nations  are  threatened  in  their 
national  existence,  Belgium  and  Servia.  While  we  howled  about 
safeguarding  the  national  existence  of  Germany,  our  cannon  were 
directed  against  these  two  states.  It  is  impossible  to  discuss  with 
people  who  still  believe  in  the  possibilrty  of  ritual  murder.  But 
to  those  who  do  not  act  from  mob  instinct,  who  do  not  think 
in  terms  of  clumsy  slogans  that  are  invented  to  catch  the  rabble, 
who  guide  their  thoughts  by  historic  facts,  it  must  be  obvious  that 
Russian  Czarism  cannot  have  such  intentions.  Russia  is  ruled  by 
desperate  criminals,  but  not  by  maniacs.  And  after  all,  the 
policies  of  absolutism,  in  spite  of  all  their  characteristic  differ- 
ences, have  this  similarity  in  all  nations,  that  they  live  not  on  thin 
air  but  upon  very  real  possibilities,  in  a  realm  where  concrete 
things  come  into  the  closest  contact  with  each  other.  We  need 
have  no  fear  of  the  arrest  of  our  German  comrades  and  their  ban- 
ishment to  Siberia,  nor  of  the  introduction  of  Russian  absolutism 
into  Germany.  For  the  statesmen  of  the  bloody  Czar,  with  all 
their  mental  inferiority,  have  a  clearer  materialistic  conception 
of  the  situation  than  some  of  our  party  editors.  These  statesmen 
know  very  well  that  political  forms  of  government  cannot  be 
"introduced"  anywhere  and  everywhere  according  to  the  desire 
of  the  rulers ;  they  know  full  well  that  every  form  of  government 
is  the  outcome  of  certain  economic  and  social  foundations,  they 
know  from  bitter  experience  that  even  in  Russia  itself  conditions 


64  THE  CRISIS 

are  almost  beyond  their  power  to  control ;  they  know,  finally,  that 
reaction  in  every  country  can  use  only  the  forms  that  are  in 
accord  with  the  nature  of  the  country,  and  that  the  absolutism 
that  is  in  accord  with  our  class  and  party  conditions  is  the  Hohen- 
zollern  police  state  and  the  Prussian  three-class  electoral  system. 
A  dispassionate  consideration  of  the  whole  situation  will  show 
that  we  need  not  fear  that  Russian  Czarism,  even  if  it  should  win 
a  complete  victory  over  Germany,  would  feel  called  upon  to  do 
away  with  these  products  of  German  culture. 

In  reality  the  conflicts  that  exist  between  Germany  and  Rus- 
sia are  of  an  entirely  different  nature.  These  differences  are 
not  to  be  found  in  the  field  of  inner  politics.  Quite  the  contrary : 
their  mutual  tendencies  and  internal  relationships  have  established 
a  century-old  traditional  friendship  between  the  two  nations. 
But  in  spite  of  and  notwithstanding  their  solidarity  on  questions 
of  inner  policy,  they  have  come  to  blows  in  the  field  of  foreign, 
world-political  hunting  grounds. 

Russian  imperialism,  like  that  of  western  nations,  consists  of 
widely  diversified  elements.  Its  strongest  strain  is  not,  how- 
ever, as  in  Germany  or  England,  the  economic  expansion  of 
capital,  hungry  for  territorial  accumulation,  but  the  political 
interests  of  the  nation.  To  be  sure,  Russian  industry  can  show 
a  considerable  export  to  the  Orient,  to  China,  Persia  and  Central 
Asia,  and  the  Czarist  Government  seeks  to  encourage  this  export 
trade  because  it  furnishes  a  desirable  foundation  for  its  sphere 
of  interest.  But  national  policies  here  play  an  active,  not  a 
passive,  role.  On  the  one  hand,  the  traditional  tendencies  of  a 
conquest-loving  Czardom,  ruling  over  a  mighty  nation  whose 
population  today  consists  of  173  millions  of  human  beings,  de- 
mand free  access  to  the  ocean,  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  on  the  East, 
to  the  Mediterranean  on  the  South,  for  industrial  as  well  as  for 
strategic  reasons.  On  the  other  hand,  the  very  existence  of 
absolutism,  and  the  necessity  of  holding  a  respected  place  in  the 
world-political  field,  and  finally  the  need  of  financial  credit  in 


THE  CRISIS  55 

foreign  countries,  without  which  Czarism  cannot  exist,  all  play 
their  important  part.  We  must  add  to  these,  as  in  every  other 
monarchy,  the  dynastic  interest.  Foreign  prestige  and  temporary 
forgetfulness  of  inner  problems  and  difficulties  are  well  known 
family  remedies  in  the  art  of  ruling,  when  a  conflict  arises  be- 
tween the  government  and  the  great  mass  of  the  people. 

But  modem  capitalist  interests  are  becoming  more  and  more 
a  factor  in  the  imperialist  aims  of  the  Czarist  nation.  Russian 
capitalism,  still  in  its  earliest  youth,  cannot  hope  to  perfect  its 
development  under  an  absolutist  regime.  On  the  whole  it  has 
advanced  little  beyond  the  primitive  stage  of  home  industry.  But 
it  sees  a  gigantic  future  before  its  eyes  in  the  exploitation  of  the 
nation's  natural  resources.  As  soon  as  Russia's  absolutism  is  swept 
away,  of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt,  Russia  will  develop  rapidly 
into  the  foremost  capitalist  nation,  provided  always  that  the  in- 
ternational situation  will  give  it  the  time  necessary  for  such 
development.  It  is  this  hope,  and  the  appetite  for  foreign  markets 
that  will  mean  increased  capitalistic  development  even  at  the 
present  time,  that  has  filled  the  Russian  bourgeoisie  with  imperial- 
istic desires  and  led  them  to  eagerly  voice  their  demands  in  the 
coming  division  of  the  world's  resources.  This  historic  desire 
is  actively  supported  by  very  tangible  immediate  interests.  There 
are,  in  the  first  place,  the  armament  industry  and  its  purveyors. 
In  the  second  place  the  conflicts  with  the  "enemy  within,"  the 
revolutionary  proletariat,  have  given  to  the  Russian  bourgeoisie 
an  increased  appreciation  of  the  powers  of  militarism  and  the 
distracting  effects  of  a  world-political  evangel.  It  has  bound 
together  the  various  capitalist  groups  and  the  nobility  under  one 
counter-revolutionary  regime.  The  imperialism  of  bourgeois 
Russia,  particularly  among  the  Liberals,  has  grown  enormously 
in  the  stormy  atmosphere  of  the  revolutionary  period,  and  has 
given  to  the  traditional  foreign  policies  of  the  Romanoffs  a 
modern  stamp.  Chief  among  the  aims  of  the  traditional  policies 
of  monarchic  Russia,  as  well  as  of  the  more  modern  appetites  of 


56  THE  CRISIS 

the  Russian  bourgeoisie,  are  the  Dardanelles.  They  are,  accord- 
ing to  the  famous  remark  made  by  Bismarck,  the  latchkey  to  the 
Russian  possessions  on  the  Black  Sea.  Since  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, Russia  has  waged  a  number  of  bloody  wars  against  Turkey, 
has  undertaken  its  mission  as  the  liberator  of  the  Balkans,  for  the 
realization  of  this  goal.  For  this  ideal,  Russia  has  piled  up 
mountains  of  dead  in  Ismael,  in  Navarin,  in  Sinope,  Silistria  and 
Sebastopol,  in  Plevna  and  Shipka.  To  the  Russian  muzhik,  the 
defense  of  his  Slavic  and  Christian  brothers  from  the  horrors  of 
Turkish  oppression  has  become  as  potent  a  war  legend  as  the 
defense  of  German  culture  and  freedom  against  the  horrors  of 
Russia  has  become  to  the  German  Social-Democracy. 

But  the  Russian  bourgeoisie  also  was  much  more  enthusiastic 
over  the  Mediterranean  prospect  than  for  its  Manchurian  and 
Mongolian  "mission."  The  liberal  bourgeoisie  of  Russia  criti- 
cised the  Japanese  war  so  severely  as  a  senseless  adventure, 
because  it  distracted  the  attention  of  Russian  politics  from  the 
problem  that  was  to  them  more  important,  the  Balkans.  And  in 
another  way,  the  unfortunate  war  with  Japan  had  the  same 
effect.  The  extension  of  Russian  power  into  Eastern  and  Cen- 
tral Asia,  lo  Thibet  and  down  Into  Persia  necessarily  aroused  a 
feeling  of  discomfort  in  the  minds  of  English  imperialists.  Eng- 
land, fearing  for  its  enormous  Indian  empire,  viewed  the  Asiatic 
movements  of  Russia  with  growing  suspicion.  In  fact,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century  the  English-Russian  conflict  in 
Asia  was  the  strongest  world-conflict  in  the  international  situa- 
tion. Moreover  this  will  be,  in  all  probability,  the  most  critical 
issue  in  future  world-political  developments  when  the  present 
war  is  over.  The  crushing  defeat  of  Russia  in  1904  and  the  sub- 
sequent outbreak  of  the  Russian  revolution  only  temporarily 
changed  the  situation.  The  apparent  weakening  of  the  empire 
of  the  Czar  brought  about  a  relaxation  of  the  tension  between 
England  and  Russia.  In  1907  a  treaty  was  signed  between  the 
two  nations  providing  for  a  mutual  control  of  Persia  that  estab- 


THE  CRISIS  57 

lished,  for  the  time  being,  friendly  and  neighborly  relations  in 
Central  Asia.  This  kept  Russia  from  undertaking  great  projects 
in  the  East,  and  her  energies  reverted  all  the  more  vigorously 
to  their  old  occupation,  Balkan  politics.  Here  the  Russia  of  the 
Czar  came  for  the  first  time  into  sharp  conflict  with  German 
culture,  after  a  century  of  faithful  and  well-founded  friendship. 
The  road  to  the  Dardanelles  leads  over  the  corpse  of  Turkey. 
But  for  more  than  a  decade  Germany  has  regarded  the  "integ- 
rity" of  this  corpse  as  its  most  important  world-political  task. 
Russian  methods  in  the  Balkans  had  changed  at  various  times. 
Embittered  by  the  ingratitude  of  the  liberated  Balkan  Slavs  who 
tried  to  escape  from  their  position  as  vassals  to  the  Czarist  Gov- 
ernment, Russia  for  a  time  supported  the  program  of  Turkish 
integrity  with  the  silent  understanding  that  the  division  of  that 
country  should  be  postponed  to  some  more  auspicious  time.  But 
today  the  final  liquidation  of  Turkey  coincides  with  the  plans 
of  both  Russian  and  English  politics.  The  latter  aims  to  unite 
Arabia  and  Mesopotamia,  and  the  Russian  territories  that  lie 
between  Egypt  and  India,  under  British  rule,  into  a  great  Mo- 
hammedan empire,  thus  conserving  its  own  position  in  India  and 
Egypt.  In  this  way  Russian  imperialism,  as  in  earlier  times 
English  imperialism,  came  into  opposition  with  that  of  Germany. 
For  this  privileged  exploiter  of  Turkish  disintegration  had  taken 
up  her  position  as  sentinel  on  the  Bosphorus. 

Russian  interests  came  to  a  clash  in  the  Balkans  not  only 
directly  with  Germany  but  with  Austria  as  well.  Austrian  im- 
perialism is  the  political  complement  of  German  imperialism, 
at  the  same  time  its  Siamese  twin  brother  and  its  fate. 

Germany,  having  isolated  herself  on  all  sides  by  her  world 
policy,  has  in  Austria  her  only  ally.  The  alliance  with  Austria 
is  old,  having  been  founded  by  Bismarck  in  1879.  But  since  that 
time  it  has  completely  changed  its  character.  Like  the  enmity 
toward  France,  the  alliance  with  Austria  received  an  entirely  new 
content  through  the  development  of  the  last  decades.     In  1879 


58  THE  CRISIS 

its  chief  purpose  was  the  mutual  defense  of  the  possessions  gained 
in  'the  wars  of  1864-1870.  The  Bismarck  Triple  Alliance  was 
conservative  in  character,  especially  since  it  signified  Austria's 
final  renunciation  of  admission  to  the  German  federation  of  states, 
its  acceptance  of  the  state  of  aflfairs  created  by  Bismarck,  and 
the  military  hegemony  of  Greater  Prussia,  The  Balkan  aspir- 
ations of  Austria  were  as  distasteful  to  Bismarck  as  the  South- 
African  conquests  of  Germany.  In  his  Gedanken  und  Erin- 
nerungen  he  says : 

"It  is  natural  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Danube  region  should 
have  needs  and  aspirations  that  extend  beyorid  the  present  boun- 
daries of  their  monarchy.  The  German  national  constitution 
points  out  the  way  along  which  Austria  can  form  a  union  of  the 
political  and  material  interests  that  exist  between  the  most  eas- 
tern Rumanian  tribe  and  the  Bay  of  Cattaro.  But  the  duty  of  the 
German  Empire  does  not  demand  that  it  satisfy  the  desires  of  its 
neighbors  for  increased  territory  with  the  blood  and  wealth  of 
its  subjects." 

He  expressed  the  same  thought  still  more  drastically  when  he 
uttered  the  well  known  sentiment  that,  to  him,  the  whole  of  Bos- 
nia was  not  worth  the  bone  of  a  Pomeranian  grenadier.  Indeed, 
a  treaty  drawn  up  with  Russia  in  1884  proves  conclusively  that 
Bismarck  never  desired  to  place  the  Triple  Alliance  at  the  service 
of  Austrian  annexationist  desires.  By  this  treaty,  the  German 
Empire  promised,  in  the  event  of  a  war  between  Austria  and, 
Russia,  not  to  support  the  former,  but  rather  to  observe  a  "bene- 
volent neutrality." 

But  since  imperialism  has  taken  hold  of  German  politics,  its 
relations  to  Austria  have  changed  as  well.  Austria-Hungary  lies 
between  Germany  and  the  Balkan,  in  other  words,  on  the  road 
over  the  critical  point  in  German  Oriental  politics.  To  make 
Austria  its  enemy  at  this  time  would  mean  complete  isolation, 
and  complete  abdication  by  Grermany  of  its  world-political  plan. 


THE  CRISIS  59 

But  the  weakening  of  Austria,  which  would  signify  the  final  li- 
quidation of  Turkey,  with  a  consequent  strengthening  of  Russia, 
the  Balkan  States,  and  England,  would  probably  accomplish  the 
national  unification  of  Germany,  but  would,  at  the  same  time, 
wipe  out,  forever,  its  imperialistic  aspirations.  The  safety  of  the 
Hapsburg  monarchy  has  therefore  logically  become  a  necessary 
complement  to  German  imperialism,  the  preservation  of  Turkey 
its  chief  problem. 

But  Austria  means  a  constant  latent  state  of  war  in  the  Bal- 
kans. For  Turkish  disintegration  has  promoted  the  existence  and 
growth  of  the  Balkan  States  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of 
the  Hapsburg  monarchy,  and  the  resulting  state  of  chronic  in- 
cipient warfare.  Obviously  the  existence  of  virile  and  indepen- 
dent national  states  on  the  border  of  a  monarchy  that  is  made 
up-  of  fragments  of  these  same  nationalities,  which  it  can  rule 
only  by  the  whip-lash  of  dictatorship  must  hasten  its  downfall. 
Austrian  Balkan  politics  and  particularly  its  Serbian  relations 
have  plainly  revealed  its  inner  decay.  Although  its  imperialistic 
appetites  wavered  between  Saloniki  and  Durazzo,  Austria  was 
not  in  a  position  to  annex  Servia,  even  before  the  latter  had 
grown  in  strength  and  size  through  the  two  Balkan  wars.  For 
the  forcible  annexation  of  Servia  would  have  dangerously 
strengthened  in  its  interior  one  of  the  most  refractory  South 
Slavic  nationalities,  a  people  that  even  now,  because  of  Austria's 
stupid  regime  of  reaction,  can  scarcely  be  held  in  check.  But 
neither  can  Austria  tolerate  the  normal  independent  development 
of  Servia  or  profit  from  it  by  normal  commercial  relations.  For 
the  Habsburg  monarchy  is  not  the  political  expression  of  a  capi- 
talist state,  but  a  loose  syndicate  of  a  few  parasitic  cliques,  striv- 
ing to  grasp  everything  within  reach,  utilizing  the  political  power? 
of  the  nation  so  long  as  this  weak  edifice  still  stands.  For  the 
benefit  of  Hungarian  agrarians,  and  for  the  purpose  of  increas- 
ing the  prices  of  agricultural  products,  Austria  has  forbidden 


60  THE  CRISIS 

Servia  to  send  cattle  and  fruits  into  Austria,  thus  depriving  this 
nation  of  farmers  of  its  most  important  market.  In  the  interests 
of  Austrian  monopoUes  it  has  forced  Servia  to  import  industrial 
products  exclusively  from  Austria,  and  at  the  highest  prices.  To 
keep  Servia  in  a  state  of  economic  and  political  dependence,  it 
prevented  Servia  from  imiting  on  the  East  with  Bulgaria,  to  se- 
cure access  to  the  Black  Sea,  and  from  securing  access  to  the 
Adriatic,  on  the  West,  by  prohibiting  the  acquisition  of  a  harbor 
in  Albania.  In  short,  the  Balkan  policy  of  Austria  was  nothing 
more  than  a  barefaced  attempt  to  choke  off  Servia.  Also,  it  was 
directed  against  the  establishment  of  mutual  relations  between, 
and  against  the  inner  growth  of  the  Balkan  States,  and  was,  there- 
fore, a  constant  menace  for  them. 

Austrian  imperialism  constantly  threatened  the  existence  and 
development  of  the  Balkan  States;  now  by  the  annexation  of 
Bosnia,  now  by  its  demands  upon  the  Sanjak  of  Novibazar  and 
on  Saloniki,  now  by  its  encroachments  upon  the  Albanian  coast. 
To  satisfy  these  tendencies  on  the  part  of  Austria,  and  to  meet 
the  competition  of  Italy  as  well,  the  caricature  of  an  independent 
Albania  under  the  rule  of  a  German  nobleman  was  created  after 
the  second  Balkan  war,  a  country  which  was,  from  the  first  hour, 
little  more  than  the  plaything  of  the  intrigues  of  imperialistic 
rivals. 

Thus  the  imperialistic  policies  of  Austria  during  the  last  decade 
were  a  constant  hindrance  to  the  normal  progressive  development 
of  the  Balkans,  and  led  to  the  inevitable  alternative:  either  the 
Habsburg  monarchy  or  the  capitalist  development  of  the  Balkan 
States. 

Emancipated  from  Turkish  rule,  the  Balkan  now  faced  its 
new  hindrance,  Austria,  and  the  necessity  of  removing  it  from  its 
path.  Historically  the  liquidation  of  Austria-Hungary  is  the 
logical  sequence  of  Turkish  disintegration,  and  both  are  in  direct 
line  with  the  process  of  historical  development. 


THE  CRISIS  61 

There  was  but  one  solution:  war — a  world  war.  For  behind 
Servia  stood  Russia,  unable  to  sacrifice  its  influence  in  the  Bal- 
kans and  its  role  of  "protector"  without  giving  up  its  whole  im- 
perialisitc  program  in  the  Orient  as  well.  In  direct  conflict  with 
Austrian  politics,  Russia  aimed  to  unite  the  Balkan  States  under 
a  Russian  protectorate,  to  be  sure.  The  Balkan  union  that  had 
almost  completely  annihilated  European  Turkey  in  the  victorious 
war  of  19 1 2  was  the  work  of  Russia,  and  was  directly  and  inten- 
tionally aimed  against  Austria.  Inspite  of  Russian  efforts,  the 
Balkan  union  was  smashed  in  the  second  Balkan  war.  But  Ser- 
via, emerging  the  victor,  became  dependent  upon  the  friendship 
of  Russia  in  the  same  degree  as  Austria  had  become  Russia's 
bitter  enemy.  Germany,  whose  fate  was  firmly  linked  to  that 
of  the  Habsburg  monarchy,  was  obliged  to  back  up  the  stupid 
Balkan  policy  of  the  latter,  step  by  step,  and  was  thus  brought 
into  a  doubly  aggravated  opposition  to  Russia. 

But  the  Balkan  policies  of  Austria,  furthermore,  brought  Aus- 
tria into  conflict  with  Italy,  which  was  actively  interested  in  the 
dissolution  of  the  Turkish  and  Austrian  Empires.  The  imperial- 
ism of  Italy  has  found  in  the  Italian  possessions  of  Austria  a 
most  popular  cloak  for  its  own  annexationist  desires.  Its  eyes 
are  directed  especially  toward  the.  Albanian  coast  of  the  Adriatic, 
should  a  new  regulation  of  Balkan  affairs  take  place.  The  Triple 
Alliance,  having  already  sustained  a  severe  blow  in  the  Tnpoli- 
tan  war,  was  destroyed  by  the  acute  crisis  in  the  Balkans  durmg 
the  two  Balkan  wars.  The  Central  Powers  were  thus  brought 
into  conflict  with  the  entire  outside  world.  German  imperialism, 
chained  to  two  decaying  corpses,  was  steering  its  course  directly 
toward  a  world  war. 

Moreover,  Germany  embarked  upon  this  course  with  a  full 
realization  of  its  consequences.  Austria,  as  the  motive  power, 
was  rushing  blindly  into  destruction.  Its  clique  of  clerical-mili- 
tarist  rulers  with  the  Archduke  Franz  Ferdinand  and  his  right 


62  THE  CRISIS 

hand  man  Baron  von  Chlumezki  at  the  head,  fairly  jumped  at 
every  excuse  to  strike  the  first  blow.  In  1909  Austria  framed  up 
the  famous  documents  by  Professor  Friedmann,  exposing  what 
purported  to  be  a  widespread,  criminal  conspiracy  of  the  Serbs 
against  the  Habsburg  monarchy,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  infus- 
ing the  German  nations  with  the  necessary  war-enthusiasm. 
These  papers  had  only  one  slight  drawback — they  were  forced 
from  beginning  to  end.  A  year  later  the  rumor  of  the  hc-rible 
martyrdom  of  the  Austrian  consul  Prohaska  in  Ueskub  was  buii- 
ly  spread  for  days  to  serve  as  the  spark  that  would  ignite  the  keg 
of  powder,  while  Prohaska  roamed  unmolested  and  happy 
through  the  streets  of  Ueskub.  Then  came  the  assassination  at 
Serajewo,  a  long  desired,  truly  shameful  crime.  "If  ever  a  blood 
sacrifice  has  had  a  lib^erating,  releasing  effect,  it  was  the  case 
here,"  rejoiced  the  spokesman  of  German  imperiaHsm.  Among 
Austrian  imperialists  the  rejoicing  was  still  greater,  and  they 
decided  to  use  the  noble  corpses  while  they  were  still  warm. 
After  a  hurried  conference  with  Berlin,  war  was  virtually  de- 
cided and  the  ultimatum  sent  out  as  a  flaming  torch  that  was  to 
set  fire  to  the  capitalist  world  at  all  four  comers. 

But  the  occurrence  at  Serajewo  only  furnished  the  immediate 
pretext.  Causes  and  conflicts  for  the  war  had  been  overripe  for 
a  long  time.  The  conjuncture  that  we  witness  today  was 
ready  a  decade  ago.  Every  year,  every  political  occurrence  of 
recent  years  has  but  served  to  bring  war  a  step  nearer :  the  Tur- 
kish revolution,  the  annexation  of  Bosnia,  the  Morocco  crisis, 
the  Tripolis  expedition,  the  two  Balkan  wars.  All  military  bills 
of  the  last  years  were  drawn  up  in  direct  preparation  for  this 
war;  the  countries  of  Europe  were  preparing,  witli  open  eyes, 
for  the  inevitable  final  contest.  Five  times  during  recent  years 
this  war  was  on  the  verge  of  an  outbreak:  in  the  summer  of  1905, 
when  Germany  for  the  first  time  made  her  decisive  demands  in 
the  Morocco  crisis ;  in  the  summer  of  1908,  when  England,  Rus- 


THE  CRISIS  63 

sia  and  France  threatened  with  war  after  the  conference  of  the 
monarchs  in  Reval  over  the  Macedonian  question,  and  war  was 
prevented  only  by  the  sudden  outbreak  of  the  Turkish  revolution ; 
jn  the  beginning  of  1909  when  Russia  replied  to  the  Bosnian  an- 
nexation with  a  mobilization,  when  Germany  in  Petersburg  for- 
mally declared  its  readiness  to  go  to  war  on  the  side  of  Austria ; 
in  the  summer  of  191 1  when  the  "Panther"  was  sent  to  Agadir, 
an  act  that  would  certainly  have  brought  on  war  if  Germany  had 
not  finally  acquiesced  in  the  Morocco  question  and  allowed  itself 
to  be  compensated  with  the  Congo  concession ;  and  finally,  in  the 
beginning  of  1913,  when  Germany,  in  view  of  the  proposed  Rus- 
sian invasion  of  Albania,  a  second  time  threatened  Petersburg 
with  its  readiness  for  warlike  measures. 

Thus  the  world  war  has  been  hanging  fire  for  eight  years.  It 
was  postponed  again  and  again  only  because  always  one  of  the 
two  sides  in  question  was  not  yet  ready  with  its  military  prepara- 
tions. 

So,  for  instance,  the  present  world  war  was  imminent  at  the 
time  of  the  "Panther"  adventure  in  191 1 — without  a  murdered 
Grand  Duke,  without  French  fliers  over  Nuremberg,  without  a 
Russian  invasion  into  East  Prussia.  Germany  simply  put  it  off 
for  a  more  favorable  moment — one  need  only  read  the  frank  ex- 
planation of  a  German  imperialist:  "The  German  government 
has  been  accused  by  the  so-called  pan-Germans  of  weakness  in 
the  Morocco  crisis  in  191 1."  Let  them  disabuse  their  minds  of 
this  false  impression.  It  is  a  fact  that,  at  the  time  when  we  sent 
the  "Panther"  to  Agadir,  the  reconstruction  of  the  North-East 
Sea  Canal  was  still  in  progress,  that  building  operations  on  Helgo- 
land for  the  construction  of  a  great  fort  were  nowhere  near  com- 
pletion, that  our  fleet  of  dreadnoughts  and  accessories,  in  com- 
parison with  the  English  sea  power,  was  in  a  far  more  unfavor- 
able position  than  was  the  case  three  years  later. 

Compared  to  the  present  time,  1914,  the  canal  as  well  as  Helgo- 


64  .THE  CRISIS 

land  were  in  a  deplorable  state  of  unreadiness,  were  partially  ab- 
solutely useless  for  war  purposes.  Under  such  circumstances, 
where  one  knows  that  one's  chances  will  be  far  more  favorable  in 
a  few  years,  it  would  be  worse  than  foolish  to  provoke  a  war. 
First  the  German  fleet  had  to  be  put  in  order;  the  great  mili- 
tary bill  had  to  be  pushed  through  the  Reichstag.  In  the  sum- 
mer of  1914  Germany  was  prepared  for  war,  while  France  was 
still  laboring  over  its  three  years  military  service  program,  while 
in  Russia  neither  the  army  nor  the  naval  program  were  ready. 
It  was  up  to  Germany  to  utilize  the  auspicious  moment." 

The  same  Rohrbach,  who  is  not  only  the  most  serious  represen- 
tative of  imperialism  in  Germany,  but  is  also  in  intimate  touch 
with  the  leading  circles  m  German  politics  and  is  their  semi-offi- 
cial mouthpiece,  comments  upon  the  situation  in  July,  1914,  as 
follows.  "At  this  time  there  was  only  one  danger,  that  we  might 
be  morally  forced,  by  an  apparent  acquiescence  on  the  part  of 
Russia,  to  wait  until  Russia  and  France  were  really  prepared." 
In  other  words,  Germany  feared  nothing  so  much  as  that  Russia 
might  give  in.  "With  deep  pain  we  saw  our  untiring  efforts  to 
preserve  world  peace  shipwrecked,  etc.,  etc." 

The  invasion  of  Belgium,  therefore,  and  the  accomplished  fact 
of  war  was  not  a  bolt  from  the  blue.  It  did  not  create  a  new,  un- 
heard of  situation.  Nor  was  it  an  event  that  came,  in  its  political 
associations,  as  a  complete  surprise  to  the  social-democratic 
group.  The  world  war  that  began  officially  on  August  4th,  1914, 
was  the  same  world  war  toward  which  German  imperialism  had 
been  driving  for  decades,  the  same  war  whose  coming  the  Social- 
Democracy  had  prophesied  year  after  year.  This  same  war  has 
been  denounced  by  social-democratic  parliamentarians,  news- 
papers and  leaflets  a  thousand  times  as  a  frivolous  imperialistic 
crime,  as  a  war  that  is  against  every  interest  of  culture  and 
against  every  interest  of  the  nation. 

And,  indeed,  not  the  "existence  and  the  independent  develop- 


THE  CRISIS  65 

ment  of  Germany  in  this  war"  are  at  stake,  inrjpite  of  ^iie  reiura 
tions  of  the  social-democratic  press,  but  the  immediate  profits  of 
the  "Deutsche  Bank"  in  Asiatic  Turkey  and  the  future  profits  of 
the  "Mannesmann"  and  "Krupp"  interests  in  Morocco,  the  exist- 
ence and  the  reactionary  character  of  Austria,  "this  heap  of  or- 
iganized  decay,  that  calls  itself  the  Habsburg  monarchy,"  as  the 
"Vorwaerts"  wrote  on  the  25th  of  July,  1914;  Hungarian  pigs 
and  prunes,  paragraph  14,  the  "Kultur"  of  Friedmann-Prohaska, 
the  existence  of  Turkish  rule  in  Asia  Minor  and  of  counter-revo- 
lution on  the  Balkan. 

Our  party  press  was  filled  with  moral  indignation  over  the  fact 
that  Germany's  foes  should  drive  black  men  and  barbarians,  Ne- 
groes, Sikhs  and  Maoris  into  the  war.  Yet  these  peoples  play  a 
role  in  this  war  that  is  approximately  identical  with  that  played 
by  the  socialist  proletariat  in  the  European  states.  If  the  Maoris 
of  New  Zealand  were  eager  to  risk  their  skulls  for  the  English 
king,  they  showed  only  as  much  understanding  of  their  own  in- 
terests as  the  German  Social-Democratic  group  that  traded  the 
existence,  the  freedom  and  the  civilization  of  the  German  people 
for  the  existence  of  the  Habsburg  monarchy,  for  Turkey  and  for 
the  vaults  of  the  "Deutsche  Bank." 

One  difference  there  is  between  the  two.  A  generation  ago, 
Maori  negroes  were  still  cannibals  and  not  students  of  Marxian 
philosophy. 


66  THE  CRISIS 


CHAPTER  V. 

But  Czarism!  In  the  first  moments  of  the  war  this  was  un- 
doubtedly the  factor  that  decided  the  position  of  our  party.  In 
its  declaration,  the  social-democratic  group  had  given  the  slogan : 
Against  Czarism!  And  out  of  this  the  socialist  press  has  made 
a  fight  for  European  culture. 

The  Frankfurter  Volksstimme  wrote  on  July  31 : 

"The  German  Social-Democracy  has  always  hated  Czardom 
as  the  bloody  guardian  of  European  reaction:  From  the  time 
that  Marx  and  Engels  followed,  with  far-seeing  eyes,  every  move- 
ment of  this  barbarian  government,  down  to  the  present  day, 
where  its  prisons  are  filled  with  political  prisoners,  and  yet  it 
trembles  before  every  labor  movement.  The  time  has  come  when 
we  must  square  accounts  with  these  terrible  scoundrels,  under 
the  German  flag  of  war." 

The  Pfaelzische  Post  of  Ludwighaf en  wrote  on  the  same  day : 

"This  is  a  principle  that  was  first  established  by  our  August 
Bebel.  This  is  the  struggle  of  civilization  against  barbarism,  and 
in  this  struggle  the  proletariat  will  do  its  share." 

The  Muenchener  Post  of  August  ist: 

"When  it  comes  to  defending  our  country  against  the  bloody 
Czardom  we  will  not  be  made  citizens  of  the  second  class." 

The  Halle  Volkshlatt  wrote  on  August  5th : 

"If  this  is  so,  if  we  have  been  attacked  by  Russia,  and  every- 
thing seems  to  corroborate  this  statement — then  the  Social-De- 
mocracy, as  a  matter  of  course,  must  vote  in  favor  of  all  means 
of  defense.  With  all  our  strength  we  must  fight  to  drive  Czar- 
ism from  our  country !" 

And  on  August  i8th : 

"Now  that  the  die  is  cast  in  favor  of  the  sword,  it  is  not  only 


THE  CRISIS  67 

the  duty  of  national  defense  and  national  existence  that  puts  the 
weapon  into  our  hands  as  into  the  hands  of  every  German,  but 
also  the  realization  that  in  the  enemy  whom  we  are  fighting  in  the 
east  we  are  striking  a  blow  at  the  foe  of  all  culture  and  all  pro- 
gress. .  .  .  The  overthrow  of  Russia  is  synonymous  with  the  vic- 
tory of  freedom  in  Europe.  .  .  " 

On  August  5th,  the  Braunschweiger  Volksfreund  wrote : 

"The  irresistible  force  of  military  preparation  drives  every- 
thing before  it.  But  the  class-conscious  labor  movement  obeys, 
not  an  outside  force,  but  its  own  conviction,  when  it  defends  the 
ground  upon  which  it  stands,  from  attack  in  the  east." 

The  Essener  Arbeiterzeitung  cried  out  on  August  3rd : 

"If  this  country  is  threatened  by  Russia's  determination,  then 
the  Social-Democrats,  since  the  fight  is  against  Russian  Blood- 
Czarism,  against  the  perpetrator  of  a  million  crimes  against  f  ree;- 
dom  and  culture,  will  allow  none  to  excell  them  in  the  fulfilment 
of  their  duty,  in  their  willingness  to  sacrifice.  Down  with  Czar- 
ism!  Down  with  the  home  of  Barbarism!  Let  that  be  our 
slogan !" 

Similarly  the  Bielef  elder  Volkswacht  writes  on  August  4th : 

"Everywhere  the  same  cry:  against  Russian  Despotism  and 
faithlessness." 

The  Elberf eld  party-organ  on  August  5th : 

"All  western  Europe  is  vitally  interested  in  the  extermination 
of  rotten  murderous  Czarism.  But  this  human  interest  is  crushed 
by  the  greed  of  England  and  France  to  check  the  profits  that 
have  been  made  possible  by  German  capital." 

The  Rheinische  Zeitung  in  Cologne : 

"Do  your  duty,  friends,  wherever  fate  may  place  you.  You 
are  fighting  for  the  civilization  of  Europe,  for  the  independence 
of  your  fatherland,  for  your  own  welfare." 

The  Schleswig-Holstein  Volkszeitung  of  August  7th  writes : 


68  THE  CRISIS 

"Of  course  we  are  living  in  an  age  of  capitalism.  Of  course 
we  will  continue  to  have  class  struggles  after  the  great  war  is 
over.  But  these  class  struggles  will  be  fought  out  in  a  freer 
state,  they  will  be  far  more  confined  to  the  economic  field  than 
before.  In  the  future  the  treatment  of  Socialists  as  outcasts,  as 
citizens  of  the  second  class,  as  politically  rightless  will  be  im- 
possible, once  the  Czardom  of  Russia  has  vanished." 

On  August  nth,  the  Hamburger  Echo  cried: 

"We  are  fighting  to  defend  ourselves  not  so  much  against  Eng- 
land and  France  as  against  Czarism.  But  this  war  we  carry  on 
with  the  greatest  enthusiasm,  for  it  is  the  war  for  civilization." 

And  the  Luebeck  party-organ  declared,  as  late  as  September 
4th: 

"If  European  liberty  is  saved,  then  Europe  will  have  German 
arms  to  thank  for  it.  Our  fight  is  a  fight  against  the  worst  enemy 
of  all  liberty  and  all  democracy." 

Thus  the  chorus  of  the  German  party  press  sounded  and  re- 
sounded. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  German  government  accepted 
the  proffered  assistance.  Nonchalantly  it  fastened  the  laurels  of 
the  liberator  of  European  culture  to  its  helmet.  Yes,  it  en- 
deavored to  carry  through  the  role  of  the  "liberator  of  nations," 
though  often  with  visible  discomfort  and  rather  awkward  grace. 
It  flattered  the  Poles  and  the  Jews  in  Russia,  and  egged  one  na- 
tion on  against  the  other,  using  the  policies  that  had  proven  so 
successful  in  their  colonial  warfare,  where  again  and  again  they 
played  up  one  chief  against  the  other.  And  the  Social-Democrats 
followed  each  leap  and  bound  of  German  imperialism  with  re- 
markable agility.  While  the  Reichstag  group  covered  up  every 
shameful  outrage  with  a  discrete  silence  the  social-democratic 
press  filled  the  air  with  jubilant  melodies,  rejoicing  in  the  liber- 
ty that  "German  riflebutts"  had  brought  to  the  poor  victims  of 
Czarism. 


THE  CRISIS  69 

Even  the  theoretical  organ  of  the  party,  the  Neue  Zeit,  wrote 
on  the  28th  of  August : 

"The  border  population  of  the  "little  father's"  realm  greeted 
the  coming  of  the  German,  troops  with  cries  of  joy.  For  these 
Poles  and  Jews  have  but  one  conception  of  their  fatherland,  that 
of  corruption  and  rule  by  the  knout.  Poor  devils,  really  father- 
landless  creatures,  these  downtrodden  subjects  of  bloody  Nicho- 
las. Even  should  they  desire  to  do  so,  they  could  find  nothing  to 
defend  but  their  chains.  And  so  they  live  and  toil,  hoping  and 
longing  that  Grerman  rifles,  carried  by  German  men,  will  crush 
the  whole  Czarist  system.  ...  A  clear  and  definite  purpose  still 
lives  in  the  German  working-class,  though  the  thunder  of  a  world- 
war  is  crashing  over  its  head.  It  will  defend  itself  from  the  allies 
of  Russian  barbarism  in  the  west  to  bring  about  an  honorable 
peace.  It  will  give  to  the  task  of  destroying  Czarism  the  last 
breath  of  man  and  beast." 

After  the  social-democratic  group  had  stamped  the  war  as  a 
war  of  defense  for  the  German  nation  and  European  culture,  the 
social-democratic  press  proceeded  to  hail  it  as  the  "savior  of  the 
oppressed  nations."  Hindenburg  became  the  executor  of  Marx 
and  Engels. 

The  memory  of  our  party  has  played  it  a  shabby  trick.  It  for- 
got all  its  principles,  its  pledges,  the  decision  of  international 
congresses  just  at  the  moment  when  they  should  have  found 
their  application.  And  to  its  great  misfortune,  it  remembered 
the  heritage  of  Karl  Marx  and  dug  it  out  of  the  dust  of  passing 
years  at  the  very  moment  when  it  could  serve  only  to  decorate 
Prussian  militarism,  for  whose  destruction  Karl  Marx  was  wil- 
ling to  sacrifice  "the  last  breath  of  man  and  beast."  Long  for- 
gotten chords  that  were  sounded  by  Marx  in  the  Neue  Rheini- 
sche  Zeitung  against  the  vassal  state  of  Nicholas  I,  during  the 
German  March  Revolution  of  1848,  suddenly  reawakened  in  the 
ears  of  the  German  Social-Democracy  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord 


70  THE  CRISIS 

1914,  and  called  them  to  arms,  arm  in  arm  with  Prussian  jun- 
kerdom  against  the  Russia  of  the  Great  Revolution  of  1905. 

This  is  where  a  revision  should  have  been  made;  the  s'ogan^• 
of  the  March  Revolution  should  have  been  brought  into  accord 
with  the  historical  experiences  of  the  last  seventy  years. 

In  1848  Russia  Czarism  was,  in  truth,  "the  guardian  of  Europ- 
ean reaction."  The  product  of  Russian  social  conditions,  firmly 
rooted  in  its  medieval,  agricultural  state,  absolutism  was  the 
protector  and  at  the  same  time  the  mighty  director  of  monarchi- 
cal reaction.  This  was  weakened,  particularly  in  Germany, 
where  a  system  of  small  states  still  obtained.  As  late  as  185 1  it 
was  possible  for  Nicholas  I,  to  assure  Berlin  through  the  Prus- 
sian consul  von  Rochow  "that  he  would,  indeed,  have  been  pleased 
to  see  the  revolution  destroyed  to  the  roots  when  general  von 
Wrangel  advanced  upon  Berlin  in  November,  1848."  At  another 
time,  in  a  warning  to  Manteuffel,  the  Czar  stated,  "that  he  relied 
upon  the  Imperial  Ministry,  under  the  leadership  of  His  High- 
ness, to  defend  the  rights  of  the  crown  against  the  chambers, 
and  give  to  the  principles  of  conservatism  their  due."  It  was 
possible  for  the  same  Nicholas  I  to  bestow  the  Alexander  Nevski 
order  on  a  Prussian  Ministerial  President  in  recognition  of  his 
"constant  efforts  ...  to  maintain  legal  order  in  Prussia." 

The  Crimean  war  worked  a  noticeable  change  in  this  respect. 
It  ended  with  the  military  and  therefore  with  the  political  bank- 
ruptcy of  the  old  system.  Russian  absolutism  was  forced  to 
grant  reforms,  to  modernize  its  rule,  to  adjust  itself  to  capitalist 
conditions.  In  so  doing,  it  gave  its  little  finger  to  the  devil  who 
already  holds  it  firmly  by  the  arm,  and  will  eventually  get  it  alto- 
gether. The  Crimean  War  was,  by  the  way,  an  instructive  exam- 
ple of  the  kind  of  liberation  that  can  be  brought  to  a  downtrod- 
den people  "at  the  point  of  the  gun."  The  military  overthrow  at 
Sedan  brought  France  its  republic.    But  this  republic  was  not  the 


THE  CRISIS  71 

gift  of  the  Bismarck  soldiery.  Prussia  at  that  time,  as  today, 
can  give  to  other  peoples  nothing  but  its  own  junker  rule.  The 
republican  France  was  the  ripe  fruit  of  inner  social  struggles 
and  of  the  three  revolutions  that  had  preceded  it.  The  crash  at 
Sebastopol  was  in  effect  similar  to  that  of  Jena,  But  because 
there  was  no  revolutionary  movement  in  Russia,  it  led  to  the  out- 
ward renovation  and  reaifirmation  of  the  old  regime. 

But  the  reforms  that  opened  the  road  for  capitalist  develop- 
ment in  Russia  during  the  6o's  were  possible  only  with  the  money 
of  a  capitalist  system.  This  money  was  furnished  by  western 
European  capital.  It  came  from  Germany  and  France,  and  has 
created  a  new  relationship  that  has  lasted  down  to  the  present 
day.  Russian  absolutism  is  now  subsidized  by  the  western 
European  bourgeoisie.  No  longer  does  the  Russian  Ruble  "roll 
in  diplomatic  chambers"  as  Prince  William  of  Prussia  bitterly 
complained  in  1854,  "into  the  very  chambers  of  the  King."  On 
the  contrary,  German  and  French  money  is  rolling  to  Petersburg 
to  feed  a  regime  that  would  long  ago  have  breathed  its  last  with- 
out this  life-giving  juice.  Russian  Czarism  is  today  no  longer 
the  product  of  Russian  conditions;  its  root  lies  in  the  capitalist 
conditions  of  western  Europe.  And  the  relationship  is  shifting 
from  decate  to  decade.  In  the  same  measure  as  the  old  root  of 
Russian  absolutism  in  Russia  itself  is  being  destroyed,  the  new, 
west-European  root  is  growing  stronger  and  stronger.  Besides 
lending  their  financial  support,  Germany  and  France,  since  1870, 
have  been  vieing  with  each  other  to  lend  Russia  their  political 
support  as  well.  As  revolutionary  forces  arise  from  the  womb 
of  the  Russian  people  itself  to  fight  against  Russian  absolutism, 
they  meet  with  an  ever  growing  resistence  in  western  Europe, 
which  stands  ready  to  lend  to  threatened  Czarism  its  moral  and 
political  support.  So  when,  in  the  beginning  of  the  8o's  the  older 
Russian  socialist  movement  severely  shook  the  Czarist  govern- 
ment and  partly  destroyed  its  authority  within  and  without,  Bis- 


7^  THE  CRISIS 

marck  made  his  treaty  with  Russia  and  strengthened  its  position 
in  international  politics. 

Capitalist  development,  tenderly  nurtured  by  Czarism  with  its 
own  hands,  finally  bore  fruit :  in  the  90's  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment of  the  Russian  proletariat  began.  The  erstwhile  "guard- 
ian of  reaction"  was  forced  to  grant  a  meaningsless  constitution, 
to  seek  a  new  protector  from  the  rising  flood  in  its  own  country. 
And  it  found  this  protector — in  Germany.  The  Germany  of  Bue- 
low  must  pay  the  debt  of  gratitude  that  the  Prussia  of  Wrangei 
and  Manteuffel  had  incurred.  Relations  were  completely  reversed. 
Russian  support  against  the  revolution  in  Germany  is  superseded 
by  German  aid  against  the  revolution  in  Russia.  Spies,  outrages, 
betrayals — a  demagogic  agitation,  like  that  which  blessed  the 
times  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  was  unleashed  in  Germany  against 
the  fighters  for  the  cause  of  Russian  freedom,  and  followed  them 
to  the  very  doorsteps  of  the  Russian  Revolution.  In  the  Koenigs- 
berg  trial  of  1904  this  wave  of  persecution  was  at  its  height.  This 
trial  threw  a  scathing  light  upon  a  whole  historical  development 
since  1848  and  showed  the  complete  change  of  relations  between 
Russian  absolutism  and  European  reaction.  "Tua  res  agitur!" 
cried  a  Prussian  Minister  of  Justice  to  the  ruling  classes  of  Ger- 
many, pointing  to  the  tottering  foundation  of  the  Czarist  regime. 
"The  establishment  of  a  democratic  republic  in  Russia  would 
strongly  influence  Germany,"  declared  First  District-Attorney 
Schulze  in  Koenigsberg.  "When  my  neighbor's  home  burns  my 
own  is  also  in  danger."  And  his  assistant  Casper  also  empha- 
sized :  "it  is  naturally  not  indifferent  to  Germany's  public  interests 
whether  this  bulwark  of  absolutism  stands  or  falls.  Certainly  the 
flames  of  a  revolutionary  movement  may  easily  spring  over  into 
Germany.  .  ." 

The  Revolution  was  overthrown,  but  the  very  causes  that  led 
to  its  temporary  downfall  are  valuable  in  a  discussion  of  the  po- 
sition taken  by  the  German  Social-Democracy  in  this  war.   That 


THE  CRISIS  73 

the  Russian  uprising  in  1905-1906  was  unsuccessful  inspite  of  its 
(.unequalled  expenditure  of  revolutionary  force,  its  clearness  of 
purpose  and  tenacity,  can  be  ascribed  to  two  distinct  causes.  The 
One  lies  in  the  inner  character  of  the  Revolution  itself,  in  its  enor- 
mous historical  program,  in  the  mass  of  economic  and  political 
problems  that  it  was  forced  to  face.  Some  of  them,  for  instance, 
the  agrarian  problem,  cannot  possibly  be  solved  within  capitalist 
society.  There  was  the  difficulty,  furthermore,  of  creating  a 
class-state  for  the  supremacy  of  the  modern  bourgeoisie  against 
the  counter-revolutionary  opposition  of  the  bourgeoisie  as  a 
whole.  To  the  onlooker  it  would  seem  that  the  Russian  Revolu- 
tion was  doomed  to  failure  because  it  was  a  proletarian  revolution 
with  bourgeois  duties  and  problems,  or  if  you  wish,  a  bourgeois 
revolution  waged  by  socialist  proletarian  methods,  a  crash  of  two 
generations  amid  lightning  and  thunder,  the  fruit  of  the  delayed 
industrial  development  of  class  conditions  in  Russia  and  their 
overripeness  in  western  Europe.  From  this  point  of  view  its 
downfall  in  1906  signifies  not  its  bankruptcy,  but  the  natural  clos- 
ing of  the  first  chapter,  upon  which  the  second  must  follow  with 
the  inevitability  of  a  natural  law.  The  second  cause  was  of  ex- 
ternal nature:  it  lay  in  western  Europe:  European  reaction  once 
more  hastened  to  help  its  endangered  protege.  Not  with  lead  and 
bullets,  although  "German  guns"  were  in  German  fists  even  in 
1905  and  only  waited  for  a  signal  from  Petersburg  to  attack  the 
neighboring  Poles.  Europe  rendered  an  assistance  that  was 
equally  valuable:  financial  subsidy  and  political  alliances  were 
arranged  to  help  Czarism  in  Russia.  French  money  paid  for  the 
armed  forces  that  broke  down  the  Russian  Revolution ;  from  Ger- 
many came  moral  and  political  support  that  helped  the  Russian 
government  to  clamber  out  from  the  depths  of  shame  into  which 
Japanese  torpedoes  and  Russian  proletarian  fists  had  thrust  it. 
In  1910,  in  Potsdam,  official  Germany  received  Russian  Czarism 
with  open  arms.    The  reception  of  the  bloodstained  monarch  at 


U  THE  CRISIS 

the  gates  of  the  German  capital  was  not  only  the  German  blessing 
for  the  throttling  of  Persia,  but  above  all  for  the  hangman's  work 
of  the  Russian  counter-revolution.  It  was  the  official  banquet  of 
German  and  Europeon  Kultur  over  what  they  believed  to  be  the 
grave  of  the  Russian  Revolution. 

And  strange!  At  that  time,  when  this  challenging  feast  upon 
the  grave  of  the  Russian  Revolution  was  held  in  its  own  home, 
the  German  Social-Democracy  remained  silent,  and  had  com- 
pletely forgotten  "the  heritage  of  our  masters"  from  1848.  At 
that  time,  when  the  hangman  was  received  in  Potsdam,  not  a 
sound,  not  a  protest,  not  an  article  vetoed  this  expression  of  soli- 
darity with  the  Russian  counter-revolution.  Only  since  this  war 
has  begun,  since  the  police  permits  it,  the  smallest  party  organ 
intoxicates  itself  with  bloodthirsty  attacks  upon  the  hangman  of 
Russian  liberty.  Yet  nothing  could  have  disclosed  more  clearly 
than  did  this  triumphal  tour  of  the  Czar  in  1910,  that  the  op- 
pressed Russian  proletariat  was  the  victim  not  only  of  domestic 
reaction  but  of  western  European  reaction  as  well.  Their  fight, 
like  that  of  the  March  revolutionists  in  1848,  was  against  reac- 
tion, not  only  in  their  own  country,  but  against  its  guardians  in 
all  other  European  countries. 

After  the  inhuman  crusades  of  the  counter-revolution  had 
somewhat  subsided,  the  revolutionary  ferment  in  the  Russian  pro- 
letariat once  more  became  active.  The  flood  began  to  rise  and  to 
boil.  Economic  strikes  in  Russia,  according  to  the  official  re- 
ports, involved  46,623  workers  and  256,386  days  in  1910;  96,730 
workers  and  768,556  days  in  191 1;  and  89,771  workers  and 
1,214,881  days  in  the  first  five  months  of  1912.  Political  mass- 
strikes,  protests  and  demonstrations  comprised  1,005,000  workers 
in  1912,  1,272,000  in  1913.  In  1914  the  flood  rose  higher  and 
higher.  On  January  22nd,  the  anniversary  of  the  beginning  of 
the  Revolution  there  was  a  demonstration  mass-strike  of  200,000 


THE  CRISIS  75 

workers.  As  in  the  days  before  the  revolution  in  1905,  the  flame 
broke  out  in  June,  in  the  Caucasus.  In  Baku,  40,000  workers 
were  on  a  general  strike.  The  flames  leaped  over  to  Petersburg. 
On  the  17th  of  June  80,000  workers  in  Petersburg  laid  down  their 
tools,  on  the  20th  of  July,  200,000  were  out,  July  23rd,  the  gene- 
rat  strike  movement  was  spreading  out  all  over  Russia,  barricades 
were  being  built,  the  revolution  was  on  its  way.  A  few  more 
months  and  it  would  have  come,  its  flags  fluttering  in  the  wind. 
A  few  more  years,  and  perhaps  the  whole  world-political  constel- 
lation would  have  been  changed,  imperialism,  perhaps,  would 
have  received  a  firm  check  in  its  mad  impulse. 

But  German  reaction  checked  the  revolutionary  movement. 
From  Berlin  and  Vienna  came  declarations  of  war,  and  the  Rus- 
sian revolution  was  buried  beneath  its  wreckage.  "German  guns" 
are  shattering,  not  Czarism,  but  its  most  dangerous  enemy.  The 
hopefully  fluttering  flag  of  the  revolution  sank  down  amid  a  wild 
whirlpool  of  war.  But  it  sank  honorably,  and  it  will  rise  again 
out  of  the  horrible  massacre,  in  spite  of  "Grerman  g^s,"  in  spite 
of  victory  or  defeat  for  Russia  on  the  battlefields. 

The  national  revolts  in  Russia  which  the  Germans  tried  to 
foster,  too,  were  unsuccessful.  The  Russian  provinces  were 
evidently  less  inclined  to  fall  for  the  bait  of  Hindenburg's  cohorts 
than  the  German  Social-Democracy.  The  Jews,  practical  people 
that  they  are,  were  able  to  count  out  on  their  fingers  that  "Ger- 
man fists"  which  have  been  unable  to  overthrow  their  own  Prus- 
sian reaction  can  hardly  be  expected  to  smash  Russian  absolu- 
tism. The  Poles,  exposed  to  the  tripleheaded  war,  were  not  in  the 
position  to  answer  their  "liberators"  in  audible  language.  But 
they  will  have  remembered  that  Polish  children  were  taught  to 
pray  the  Lord's  prayer  in  the  German  language  with  bloody  welts 
on  their  backs,  will  not  have  forgotten  the  liberality  of  Prussian 
anti-Polish  laws.    All  of  them,  Poles,  Jews  and  Russians  had  no 


76  THE  CRISIS 

difficulty  in  understanding  that  the  "German  gun,"  when  it  des- 
cends upon  their  heads,  brings  not  hberty,  but  death. 

To  couple  the  legend  of  Russian  liberation  with  its  Marxian 
heritage  is  worse  than  a  poor  joke  on  the  part  of  the  German  So- 
cial-Democracy. It  is  a  crime.  To  Marx,  the  Russian  revolution 
was  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Every  political 
and  historical  perspective  was  made  dependent  upon  the  one 
consideration,  "provided  the  Russian  revolution  has  not  already 
broken  out."  Marx  believed  in  the  Russian  revolution  and  ex- 
pected it  even  at  a  time  when  Russia  was  only  a  state  of  vassals. 
When  the  war  broke  out  the  Russian  revolution  had  occurred.  Its 
first  attempt  had  not  been  victorious ;  but  it  could  not  be  ignored ; 
it  is  on  the  order  of  the  day.  And  yet  our  German  Social-Demo- 
crats came  with  "German  guns,"  declaring  the  Russian  revolution 
null  and  void;  struck  it  from  the  pages  of  History.  In  1848 
Marx  spoke  from  the  German  barricades;  in  Russia  there  was 
hopeless  reaction.  In  1914  Russia  was  in  the  throes  of  a  revolu- 
tion; while  its  German  "liberators"  were  cowed  by  the  fists  of 
Prussian  junkerdom. 

But  the  liberating  mission  of  the  German  armies  was  only  an 
episode.  German  imperialism  soon  raised  its  uncomfortable 
mask  and  turned  openly  against  France  and  England.  Here,  too, 
it  was  supported  valiantly  by  a  large  number  of  the  party  papers. 
They  ceased  railing  against  the  bloody  Czar,  and  held  up  "per- 
fidious Albion"  and  its  merchant  soul  to  the  public  disdain.  They 
set  out  to  free  Europe,  no  longer  from  Russian  absolutism,  but 
from  English  naval  supremacy.  The  hopeless  confusion  in 
which  the  party  had  become  entangled,  found  a  drastic  illustra- 
tion in  the  desperate  attempt  made  by  the  more  thoughtful  por- 
tion of  our  party-press  to  meet  this  new  change  of  front.  In 
vain  they  tried  to  force  the  war  back  into  its  original  channels, 
to  nail  it  down  to  the  "heritage  of  our  masters" — that  is,  to  the 


THE  CRISIS  77 

myth  that  they,  the  Social-Democracy — ^had  themselves  created 
"With  heavy  heart  I  have  been  forced  to  mobilize  the  army 
against  a  neighbor  at  whose  side  I  have  fought  on  so  many 
battlefields.  With  honest  sorrow  I  saw  a  friendship,  truly  served 
by  Germany,  break."  That  was  simple,  open,  honest.  But  when 
the  rhetoric  of  the  first  weeks  of  war  backed  down  before  the 
lapidary  language  of  imperialism,  the  German  Social-Democracy 
lost  its  only  plausible  excuse. 


73  THE  CRISIS 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Of  equal  importance  in  the  attitude  of  the  Social-Democracy 
was  the  official  adoption  of  a  program  of  civil  peace,  i.  e,  the 
cessation  of  the  class  struggle  for  the  duration  of  the  war.  The 
declaration  that  was  read  by  the  Social-Democratic  group  in  the 
Reichstag  on  the  fourth  of  August  had  been  agreed  upon  in  ad- 
vance with  representatives  of  the  government  and  the  capitalist 
parties.  It  was  little  more  than  a  patriotic  grand-stand  play, 
prepared  behind  the  scenes  and  delivered  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people  at  home  and  in  other  nations. 

To  the  leading  elements  in  the  labor  movement,  the  vote  in 
favor  of  the  war  credits  by  the  Reichstag  group  was  a  cue  for 
the  immediate  settlement  of  all  labor  controversies.  Nay  more, 
they  announced  this  to  the  manufacturers  as  a  patriotic  duty  in- 
curred by  labor  when  it  agreed  to  observe  a  civil  peace.  These 
same  labor  leaders  undertook  to  supply  city  labor  to  farmers  in 
order  to  assure  a  prompt  harvest.  The  leaders  of  the  Social- 
Democratic  women's  movement  united  with  capitalist  women  for 
"National  service"  and  placed  the  most  important  elements  that 
remained  after  the  mobilization  at  the  disposal  of  national  Samar- 
itan work.  Socialist  women  worked  in  soup  kitchens  and  on  ad- 
visory commissions  instead  of  carrying  on  agitation  work  for  the 
party.  Under  the  socialist  exception  laws  the  party  had  utilized 
parliamentary  elections  to  spread  its  agitation  and  to  keep  a  firm 
hold  upon  the  population  in  spite  of  the  state  of  siege  that  had 
been  declared  against  the  party  and  the  persecution  of  the  social- 
ist press.  In  this  crisis  the  social-democratic  movement  has 
voluntarily  relinquished  all  propaganda  and  education  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  proletarian  class  struggle,  during  Reichstag  and 
Landtag  elections.  Parliamentary  elections  have  everywhere 
been  reduced  to  the  simple  bourgeois  formula;  the  catching  of 


THE  CRISIS  79 

votes  for  the  candidates  of  the  party  on  the  basis  of  an  amicable 
and  peaceful  settlement  with  its  capitalist  opponents.  When  the 
social-democratic  representatives  in  the  Landtag  and  in  the  muni- 
cipal commissions — with  the  laudable  exceptions  of  the  Prussian 
and  the  Alsatian  Landtag — with  high  sounding  references  to  the 
existing  state  of  civil  peace,  voted  their  approval  of  the  war 
credits  that  had  been  demanded,  it  only  emphasized  how  complete- 
ly the  party  had  broken  with  things  as  they  were  before  the  war. 
The  social-democratic  press,  with  a  few  exceptions,  proclaimed 
the  principle  of  national  unity  as  the  highest  duty  of  the  Ger- 
man people.  It  warned  the  people  not  to  withdraw  their  funds 
from  the  savings  banks  lest  by  so  doing  they  unbalance  the  eco- 
nomic life  of  the  nation,  and  hinder  the  savings  banks  in  liberally 
buying  war-loan  bonds.  It  pleaded  with  proletarian  women  that 
they  should  spare  their  husbands  at  the  front  the  tales  of  suffer- 
ing which  they  and  their  children  were  being  forced  to  undergo, 
to  bear  in  silence  the  neglect  of  the  government,  to  cheer  the  fight- 
ing warriors  with  happy  stories  of  family  life  and  favorable  re- 
ports of  prompt  assistance  through  government  agencies.  They 
rejoiced  that  the  educational  work  that  had  been  conducted  for 
so  many  years  in  and  through  the  labor  movement  had  become  a 
"conspicuous  asset  in  conducting  the  war.  Something  of  this  spirit 
the  following  example  will  show : 

"A  friend  in  need  is  a  friend  indeed.  This  old  adage  has  once 
more  proven  its  soundness.  The  social-democratic  proletariat 
that  has  been  prosecuted  and  clubbed  for  its  opinions  went,  like 
one  man,  to  protect  our  homes.  German  labor  unions  that  had  so 
often  suffered  both  in  Germany  and  in  Prussia  report  unanimous- 
ly that  the  best  of  their  members  have  joined  the  colors.  Even 
capitalist  papers  like  the  General-Anzeiger  note  the  fact  and  ex- 
press the  conviction  that  "these  people"  will  do  their  duty  as  well 
as  any  man,  that  blows  will  rain  most  heavily  where  they  stand." 

"As  for  us,  we  are  convinced  that  our  labor  unionists  can  do 


80  THE  CRISIS 

more  than  deal  out  blows.  Modern  mass  armies  have  by  no  means 
simplified  the  work  of  their  generals.  It  is  practically  impossible 
to  move  forward  large  troop  divisions  in  close  marching  order 
under  the  deadly  fire  of  modem  artillery.  Ranks  must  be  care- 
fully widened,  must  be  more  accurately  controlled.  Modern  war- 
fare requires  discipline  and  clearness  of  vision  not  only  in  the  di- 
visions but  in  every  individual  soldier.  The  war  will  show  how 
vastly  human  material  has  been  improved  by  the  educational  work 
of  the  labor  unions,  how  well  their  activity  will  serve  the  nation 
in  these  times  of  awful  stress.  The  Russian  and  the  French  sol- 
dier may  be  capable  of  marvelous  deeds  of  bravery.  But  in  cool 
collected  consideration  none  will  surpass  the  German  labor  union- 
ists. Then  too,  many  of  our  organized  workers  know  the  ways 
and  by-ways  of  the  border  land  as  well  as  they  know  their  own 
pockets,  and  not  a  few  of  them  are  accomplished  linguists.  The 
Prussian  advance  in  1866  has  been  termed  a  schoolmasters'  vic- 
tory. This  will  be  a  victory  of  labor  union  leaders."  (Frankfur- 
ter Volksstimme,  August  18,  1914). 

In  the  same  strain  the  Neue  Zeit,  the  theoretical  organ  of  the 
party,  declared  (No.  23,  Sept.  25,  1914)  : 

"Until  the  question  of  victory  or  defeat  has  been  decided,  all 
doubts  must  disappear,  even  as  to  the  causes  of  the  war.  Today 
there  can  be  no  difference  of  party,  class  and  nationality  within 
the  army  or  the  population." 

And  in  No.  8,  Nov.  27,  1914,  the  same  Neue  Zeit  declared 
in  a  chapter  on  "The  Limitations  of  the  International" : 

"The  world  war  divides  the  socialists  of  the  world  into  differ- 
ent camps  and  especially  into  different  national  camps.  The  In- 
ternational cannot  prevent  this.  In  other  words,  the  International 
ceases  to  be  an  effective  instrument  in  times  of  war.  It  is,  on 
the  whole,  a  peace  instrument.  Its  great  historic  problem  is  the 
struggle  for  peace  and  the  class  struggle  in  times  of  peace." 

Briefly,  therefore,  beginning  with  the  fourth  of  August  until 


THE  CRISIS  81 

the  day  when  peace  shall  be  declared,  the  social-democracy  has 
declared  the  class  struggle  extinct.  The  first  thunder  of  Krupp 
cannoiis  in  Belgium  welded  Germany  into  a  wonderland  of  class 
solidarity  and  social  harmony. 

How  is  this  miracle  to  be  understood?  The  class  struggle  is 
known  to  be  not  a  social-democratic  invention  that  can  be  arbi- 
trarily set  aside  for  a  period  of  time  whenever  it  may  seem  con- 
venient to  do  so.  The  proletarian  class  struggle  is  older  than  the 
social-democracy,  is  an  elementary  product  of  class  society.  It 
flamed  up  all  over  Europe  when  capitalism  first  came  into  power. 
The  modern  proletariat  was  not  led  by  the  social-democracy  into 
the  class  struggle.  On  the  contrary,  the  international  social-dem- 
ocratic movement  was  called  into  being  by  the  class  struggle  -to 
bring  a  conscious  aim  and  unity  into  the  various  local  and  scat- 
tered fragments  of  the  class  struggle.  What  then  changed  in  this 
respect  when  the  war  broke  out  ?  Have  private  property,  capital- 
ist exploitation  and  class  rule  ceased  to  exist?  Or  have  the 
propertied  classes  in  a  spell  of  patriotic  fervor  declared:  in  view 
of  the  needs  of  the  war  we  hereby  turn  over  the  means  of  produc- 
tion, the  earth,  the  factories  and  the  mills  thereon,  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  people?  Have  they  relinquished  the  right  to  make 
profits  out  of  these  possessions?  Have  they  set  aside  all  political 
privileges,  will  they  sacrifice  them  upon  the  altar  of  the  father- 
land, now  that  it  is  in  danger?  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  rather 
naive  hypothesis,  and  sounds  almost  like  a  story  from  a  kinder- 
garten primer.  And  yet  the  declaration  of  our  official  leaders 
that  the  class  struggle  has  been  suspended,  permits  no  other  in- 
terpretation. Of  course  nothing  of  the  sort  has  occurred.  Prop- 
erty rights,  exploitation  and  class  rule,  even  political  oppression 
in  all  its  Prussian  thoroughness  have  remained  intact.  The  can- 
non in  Belgium  and  in  Eastern  Prussia  have  not  had  the  slightest 
influence  upon  the  fundamental  social  and  political  structure  of 
Germany. 


a^  THE  CRISIS 

The  cessation  of  the  class  struggle  was,  therefore,  a  deplorably 
one-sided  affair.  While  capitalist  oppression  and  exploitation, 
the  worst  enemies  of  the  working  class  remain,  socialist  and  labor 
union  leaders  have  generously  delivered  the  working  class,  with- 
out a  struggle,  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy  for  the  duration  of 
the  war.  While  the  ruling  classes  are  fully  armed  with  the  prop- 
erty and  supremacy  rights,  the  working  class,  at  the  advice  of  the 
Social-Democracy  has  laid  down  its  arms. 

Once  before,  in  1848  in  France,  the  proletariat  experienced 
this  miracle  of  class  harmony,  this  fraternity  of  all  classes  of  a 
modem  capitalist  state  of  society.  In  his  "Class  Struggles  in 
France,"  Karl  Marx  writes :  In  the  eyes  of  the  proletariat,  who 
confused  the  moneyed  aristocracy  with  the  bourgeoisie,  in  the 
imagination  of  republican  idealists,  who  denied  the  very  exist- 
ence of  classes,  or  attributed  them  to  a  monarchical  form  of  gov- 
ernment, in  the  deceitful  phrases  of  those  bourgeois  who  had 
hitherto  been  excluded  from  power,  the  rule  of  the  bourgeoisie 
was  ended  when  the  republic  was  proclaimed.  At  that  time  all 
royalists  became  republican,  all  millionaires  in  Paris  became 
laborers.  In  the  word  "Fraternity,"  the  brotherhood  of  man,  this 
imaginary  destruction  of  classes  found  official  expression.  This 
comfortable  abstraction  from  class  differences,  this  sentimental 
balancing  of  class  interests,  this  Utopian  disregard  of  the  class 
struggle,  this  "Fraternity"  was  the  real  slogan  of  the  February 
revolution.  .  .  The  Parisian  proletariat  rejoiced  in  an  orgy  of 
brotherhood.  .  .  The  Parisian  proletariat,  looking  upon  the  re- 
public as  its  own  creation,  naturally  acclaimed  every  act  of  the 
provisional  bourgeois  government.  Willingly  it  permitted  Caus- 
sidiere  to  use  its  members  as  policemen  to  protect  the  property 
of  Paris.  With  unquestioning  faith  it  allowed  Louis  Blanc  to 
regulate  wage  differences  betwen  workers  and  masters.  In  their 
eyes  it  was  a  matter  of  honor  to  preserve  the  fair  name  of  the 
republic  before  the  peoples  of  Europe." 


THE  CRISIS  83 

Thus  in  February,  1848,  a  naive  Parisian  proletariat  set  aside 
the  class  struggle.  But  let  us  not  forget  that  even  they  committed 
this  mistake  only  after  the  July  monarchy  had  been  crushed  by 
their  revolutionary  action,  after  a  republic  had  been  established. 
The  fourth  of  August,  1914,  is  an  inverted  February  revolution : 
It  is  the  setting  aside  of  class  differences,  not  under  a  republic, 
but  under  a  military  monarchy,  not  after  a  victory  of  the  people 
over  reaction,  but  after  a  victory  of  reaction  over  the  people,  not 
with  the  proclamation  of  "Libert^,  Egalite,  Fraternite,"  but  with 
the  proclamation  of  a  state  of  siege,  after  the  press  had  been 
choked  and  the  constitution  annihilated. 

Impressively  the  government  of  Germany  proclaimed  a  civil 
peace.  Solemnly  the  parties  promised  to  abide  by  it.  But  as  ex- 
perienced politicians  these  gentlemen  know  full  well  that  it  is 
fatal  to  trust  too  much  to  promises.  They  secured  civil  peace  for 
themselves  by  the  very  real  measure  of  a  military  dictatorship. 
This  too  the  social-democratic  group  accepted  without  protest  or 
opposition.  In  the  declarations  of  August  fourth  and  December 
second  there  is  not  a  syllable  of  indignation  over  the  affront  con- 
tained in  the  proclamation  of  military  rule.  When  it  voted  for 
civil  peace  and  war  credits,  the  social-democracy  silently  gave  its 
consent  to  military  rule  as  well,  and  laid  itself,  bound  and  gagged, 
at  the  feet  of  the  ruling  classes.  The  declaration  of  military  rule 
was  purely  an  anti-socialist  measure.  From  no  other  side  were 
resistance,  protest,  action,  and  difficulties  to  be  expected.  As  a 
reward  for  its  capitulation  the  social-democracy  merely  received 
what  it  would  have  received  under  any  circumstances,  even  after 
an  unsuccessful  resistance,  namely  military  rule.  The  impres- 
sive declaration  of  the  Reichstag  group  emphasizes  the  old  so- 
cialist principle  of  the  right  of  nations  to  self-determination,  as 
an  explanation  of  their  vote  in  favor  of  war  credits.  Self-deter- 
mination for  the  German  proletariat  was  the  straight- jacket  of 
a  state  of  siege.  Never  in  the  histor)'  of  the  world  has  a  party 
made  itself  more  ridiculous. 


84  THE  CRISIS 

But  more !  In  refuting  the  existence  of  the  class  struggle,  the 
social-democracy  has  denied  the  very  basis  of  its  own  existence. 
What  is  the  very  breath  of  its  body,  if  not  the  class  struggle? 
What  role  could  it  expect  to  play  in  the  war,  once  having  sacri- 
ficed the  class  struggle,  the  fundamental  principle  of  its  exist- 
ence? The  social-democracy  has  destroyed  its  mission,  for  the 
period  of  the  war,  as  an  active  political  party,  as  a  representative 
of  working  class  politics.  It  has  thrown  aside  the  most  important 
weapon  it  possessed,  the  power  of  criticism  of  the  war  from  the 
peculiar  point  of  view  of  the  working  class.  Its  only  mission  now 
is  to  play  the  role  of  the  gendarme  over  the  working  class  under 
a  state  of  military  rule. 

German  freedom,  that  same  German  freedom  for  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  declaration  of  the  Reichstag  group,  Krupp  can- 
nons are  now  fighting,  has  been  endangered  by  this  attitude  of 
the  social-democracy  far  beyond  the  period  of  the  present  war. 
The  leaders  of  the  Social-Democracy  are  convinced  that  demo- 
cratic liberties  for  the  working  class  will  come  as  a  reward  for 
its  allegiance  to  the  fatherland.  But  never  in  the  history  of  the 
world  has  an  oppressed  class  received  political  rights  as  a  reward 
for  service  rendered  to  the  ruling  classes.  History  is  full  of 
examples  of  shameful  deceit  on  the  part  of  the  ruling  classes, 
even  when  solemn  promises  were  made  before  the  war  broke  out. 
The  Social-Democracy  has  not  assured  the  extension  of  liberty 
in  Germany.  It  has  sacrificed  those  liberties  that  the  working 
class  possessed  before  the  war  broke  out.  The  indifference  with 
which  the  German  people  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  deprived 
of  the  freedom  of  the  press,  of  the  right  of  assembly  and  of  pub- 
lic life,  the  fact  that  they  not  only  calmly  bore,  but  even  ap- 
plauded the  state  of  siege,  is  unexampled  in  the  history  of  modern 
society.  In  England  the  freedom  of  the  press  has  nowhere  been 
violated,  in  France  there  is  incomparably  more  freedom  of  public 
opinion  than  in  Germany.    In  no  country  has  public  opinion  so 


THE  CRISIS  85 

completely  vanished,  nowhere  has  it  been  so  completely  super- 
seded by  official  opinion,  by  the  order  of  the  government,  as  in 
Germany.  Even  in  Russia  there  is  only  the  destructive  work  of 
a  public  censor  who  effectively  wipes  out  opposition  of  opinion. 
But  not  even  there  have  they  descended  to  the  custom  of  provid- 
ing articles  ready  for  the  press  to  the  opposition  papers.  In  no 
other  country  has  the  government  forced  the  opposition  press  to 
express  in  its  columns  the  politics  that  have  been  dictated  and 
ordered  by  the  government  in  "Confidential  Conferences."  Such 
measures  were  unknown  even  in  Germany  during  the  war  of 
1870.  At  that  time  the  press  enjoyed  unlimited  freedom,  and  ac- 
companied the  events  of  the  war,  to  Bismarck's  active  resent- 
ment, with  criticism  that  was  often  exceedingly  sharp.  The 
newspapers  were  full  of  active  discussion  on  war  aims,  on  ques- 
tions of  annexation,  and  constitutionality.  When  Johann  Jacobi 
was  arrested,  a  storm  of  indignation  swept  over  Germany,  so 
that  even  Bismarck  felt  obliged  to  disavow  all  responsibility  for 
this  "mistake"  of  the  powers  of  reaction.  Such  was  the  situation 
in  Germany  at  a  time  when  Bebel  and  Liebknecht,  in  the  name 
of  the  German  working  class,  had  declined  all  community  of 
interests  with  the  ruling  jingoes.  It  took  a  Social-Democracy  with 
four  and  one-half  million  votes  to  conceive  of  the  touching 
"Burgfrieden,"  to  assent  to  war  credits,  to  bring  upon  us  the 
worst  military  dictatorship  that  was  ever  suffered  to  exist.  That 
such  a  thing  is  possible  in  Germany  to-day,  that  not  only  the  bour- 
geois press,  but  the  highly  developed  and  influential  socialist  press 
as  well  permits  these  things  without  even  the  pretence  of  oppo- 
sition bears  a  fatal  significance  for  the  future  of  Germany  liberty. 
It  proves  that  society  in  Germany  to-day  has  within  itself  no 
foundation  for  political  freedom,  since  it  allows  itself  to  be  thus 
lightly  deprived  of  its  most  sacred  rights.  Let  us  not  forget  that 
the  political  rights  that  existed  in  Germany  before  the  war  were 
not  won,  as  were  those  of  France  and  England,  in  great  and  re- 


86  THE  CRISIS 

peated  revolutionary  struggles,  are  not  firmly  anchored  in  the 
lives  of  the  people  by  the  power  of  revolutionary  tradition.  They 
are  the  gift  of  a  Bismarckian  policy  granted  after  a  period  of 
victorious  counter  -  revolution  that  lasted  over  twenty  years. 
German  liberties  did  not  ripen  on  the  field  of  revolution,  they  are 
the  product  of  diplomatic  gambling  by  Prussian  military  mon- 
archy, they  are  the  cement  with  which  this  military  monarchy 
has  united  the  present  German  empire.  Danger  threatens  the 
free  development  of  German  freedom  not,  as  the  German  Reichs- 
tag group  believe,  from  Russia,  but  in  Germany  itself.  It  lies 
in  the  peculiar  counter-revolutionary  origin  of  the  German 
constitution,  and  looms  dark  in  the  reactionary  powers  that  have 
controlled  the  German  state  since  the  empire  was  founded,  con- 
ducting a  silent  but  relentless  war  against  these  pitiful  "German 
liberties."  The  Junkers  of  east  of  the  Elbe,  the  business  jingoes, 
the  arch-reactionaries  of  the  Center,  the  degraded  "German 
liberals,"  the  personal  rulership,  the  sway  of  the  sword,  the 
Zabem  policy,  that  triumphed  all  over  Germany  before  the  war 
broke  out,  these  are  the  real  enemies  of  culture  and  liberty,  and 
the  war,  the  state  of  siege  and  the  attitude  of  the  social  demo- 
cracy, are  strengthening  the  powers  of  darkness  all  over  the  land. 
The  Liberal,  to  be  sure,  can  explain  away  this  graveyard  quiet 
in  Germany  with  a  characteristically  liberal  explanation;  to  him 
it  is  only  a  temporary  sacrifice,  for  the  duration  of  the  war.  But 
to  a  people  that  is  politically  ripe,  a  sacrifice  of  its  rights  and  its 
public  life,  even  temporarily,  is  as  impossible  as  for  a  human 
being  to  give  up,  for  a  time,  his  right  to  breathe.  A  people  that 
gives  silent  consent  to  military  government  in  times  of  war 
thereby  admits  that  political  independence  at  any  time  is  super- 
fluous. The  passive  submission  of  the  Social  Democracy  to  the 
present  state  of  siege  and  its  vote  for  war  credits  without  attach- 
ing the  slightest  condition  thereto,  its  acceptance  of  a  civil  peace, 
has  demoralized  the  masses,  the  only  existing  pillar  of  German 


THE  CRISIS  81 

constitutional  government,  has  strengthened  the  reaction  of  its 
rulers,  the  enemies  of  constitutional  government. 

By  sacrificing  the  class  struggle  our  party  has  moreover,  once 
and  for  all,  given  up  the  possibility  of  making  its  influence  ef- 
fectively felt  in  determining  the  extent  of  the  war  and  the  terms 
of  peace.  To  its  own  official  declaration,  its  acts  have 
been  a  stinging  blow.  While  protesting  against  all  annexations, 
which  are,  after  all,  the  logical  consequences  of  an  imperialistic 
war  that  is  successful  from  the  military  point  of  view,  it  has 
handed  over  every  weapon  that  the  working  class  possessed  that 
might  have  empowered  the  masses  to  mobilize  public  opinion  in 
their  own  direction,  to  exert  an  effective  pressure  upon  the  terms 
of  war  and  of  peace.  By  assuring  militarism  of  peace  and  quiet 
at  home  the  Social  Democracy  has  given  its  military  rulers  per- 
mission to  follow  their  own  course  without  even  considering  the 
interests  of  the  masses,  has  unleashed  in  the  hearts  of  the  ruling 
classes  the  most  unbridled  imperialistic  tendencies.  In  other 
words,  when  the  Social  Democracy  adopted  its  platform  of  civil 
peace,  and  the  political  disarmament  of  the  working  class,  it  con- 
demned its  own  demand  of  no  annexations  to  impotency. 

Thus  the  Social  Democracy  has  added  another  crime  to  the 
heavy  burden  it  already  has  to  bear,  namely  the  lengthening  of  the 
war.  The  commonly  accepted  dogma  that  we  can  oppose  the 
war  only  so  long  as  it  is  threatened,  has  become  a  dangerous  trap. 
As  an  inevitable  consequence,  once  the  war  has  come,  social 
democratic  political  action  is  at  an  end.  There  can  be,  then, 
but  one  question,  victory  or  defeat,  i.  e.,  the  class  struggle  must 
stop  for  the  period  of  the  war.  But  actually  the  greatest  prob- 
lem for  the  political  movement  of  the  Social  Democracy  begins 
only  after  the  war  has  broken  out.  At  the  international  con- 
gresses held  in  Stuttgart  in  1907  and  in  Basel  in  191 2,  the  German 
party  and  labor  union  leaders  unanimously  voted  in  favor  of  a 
resolution  which  says: 


88  THE  CRISIS 

"Should  war  nevertheless  break  out,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Social-Democracy  to  work  for  a  speedy  peace,  and  to  strive  with 
every  means  in  its  power  to  utilize  the  industrial  and  political 
crisis  to  accomplish  the  awakening  of  the  people,  thus  hastening 
the  overthrow  of  capitalist  class  rule". 

What  has  the  Social-Democracy  done  in  this  war?  Exactly 
the  contrary.  By  voting  in  favor  of  war  credits  and  entering 
upon  a  civil  peace,  it  has  striven,  by  all  the  means  in  its  power, 
to  prevent  the  industrial  and  political  crisis,  to  prevent  an  awak- 
ening of  the  masses  by  the  war.  It  strives  "with  all  the  means 
in  its  power"  to  save  the  capitalist  state  from  its  own  anarchy, 
to  reduce  the  nimiber  of  its  victims.  It  is  claimed — we  have  often 
heard  this  argument  used  by  Reichstag  deputies — that  not  one 
man  less  would  have  fallen  upon  the  battle  fields  if  the  Social 
Democratic  group  had  voted  against  the  war  credits.  Our  party 
press  has  steadfastly  maintained  that  we  must  support  and  join 
in  the  defence  of  our  country  in  order  to  reduce  the  number  of 
bloody  victims  that  this  war  shall  cost.  But  the  policy  that  we 
have  followed  out  has  had  exactly  the  opposite  effect.  In  the 
first  place,  thanks  to  the  civil  peace,  and  the  patriotic  attitude  of 
the  Social  Democracy,  the  imperialistic  war  unleashed  its  furies 
without  fear.  Hitherto,  fear  of  restiveness  at  home,  fear  of  the 
fury  of  the  hungry  populace,  have  been  a  load  upon  the  minds 
of  the  ruling  classes  that  effectively  checked  them  in  their  bel- 
licose desires.  In  the  well  known  words  of  Buelow:  "they  are 
trying  to  put  off  the  war  chiefly  because  they  fear  the  Social 
Democracy".  Rohrbach  says  in  his  "Krieg  und  die  Deutsche 
Politik",  page  7,  "unless  elemental  catastrophies  intervene,  the 
only  power  that  can  force  (jermany  to  make  peace  is  the  hunger 
of  the  breadless".  Obviously  he  meant  a  hunger  that  attracts  at- 
tention, that  forces  itself  unpleasantly  upon  the  ruling  classes  in 
order   to  force   them  to   pay  heed  to  its  demands.    Let  us  see. 


THE  CRISIS  89 

finally,  what  a  prominent  military  theoretician,  General  Bern- 
hardi,  says,  in  his  great  work  "Vom  Heutigen  Kriege."  "Thus 
modem  mass  armies  make  war  difficult  for  a  variety  of  reasons. 
Moreover  they  constitute,  in  and  of  themselves,  a  danger  that 
must  never  be  underestimated. 

"The  mechanism  of  such  an  army  is  so  huge  and  so  compli- 
cated that  it  can  remain  efficient  and  flexible  only  so  long  as  its 
cogs  and  wheels  work,  in  the  main,  dependably,  and  obvious 
moral  confusion  is  carefully  prevented.  These  are  things  that 
cannot  be  completely  avoided,  as  little  as  we  can  conduct  a  war 
exclusively  with  victorious  battles.  They  can  be  overcome  if 
they  appear  only  within  certain  restricted  limits.  But  when 
great,  compact  masses  once  shake  off  their  leaders,  when  a  spirit 
of  panic  becomes  widespread,  when  a  lack  of  sustenance  becomes 
extensively  felt,  when  the  spirit  of  revolt  spreads  out  among 
the  masses  of  the  army,  then  the  army  becomes  not  only  in- 
effectual against  the  enemy,  it  becomes  a  menace  to  itself  and  to 
its  leaders.  When  the  army  bursts  the  bands  of  discipline,  when 
it  voluntarily  interrupts  the  course  of  military  operation,  it 
creates  problems  that  its  leaders  are  unable  to  solve. 

"War,  with  its  modern  mass  armies  is,  under  all  circumstances, 
a  dangerous  game,  a  game  that  demands  the  greatest  possible 
personal  and  financial  sacrifice  the  state  can  offer.  Under  such 
circumstances  it  is  clear  that  provision  must  be  made  every- 
where that  the  war,  once  it  has  broken  out,  be  brought  to  an  end 
as  quickly  as  possible,  to  release  the  extreme  tension  that  must 
accompany  this  supreme  effort  on  the  part  of  whole  nations." 

Thus  capitalist  politicians  and  military  authorities  alike  be- 
lieve war,  with  its  modem  mass  armies,  to  be  a  dangerous  game. 
And  therein  lay  for  the  Social  Democracy  the  most  effectual  op- 


90  THE  CRISIS 

portunity,  to  prevent  the  rulers  of  the  present  day  from  precipit- 
ating war  and  to  force  them  to  end  it  as  rapidly  as  possible.  But 
the  position  of  the  Social  Democracy  in  this  war  cleared  away 
all  doubts,  has  torn  down  the  dams  that  held  back  the  storm- 
flood  of  militarism.  In  fact  it  has  created  a  power  for  which 
neither  Bemhardi  nor  any  other  capitalist  statesman  dared  hope 
in  his  wildest  dreams.  From  the  camp  of  the  social-democrats 
came  the  cry :  "Durchhalten",  i.  e.,  a  continuation  of  this  human 
slaughter.  And  so  the  thousands  of  victims  that  have  fallen 
for  months  on  the  battlefields  lie  upon  our  conscience. 


THE  CRISIS  91 


CHAPTER  VII. 

"But  since  we  have  been  unable  to  prevent  the  war,  since  it 
has  come  in  spite  of  us,  and  our  country  is  facing  invasion,  shall 
we  leave  our  country  defenseless!  Shall  we  deliver  it  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy?  Does  not  Socialism  demand  the  right  of 
nations  to  determine  their  own  destinies  ?  Does  it  not  mean  that 
every  people  is  justified,  nay  more,  is  in  duty  bound,  to  protect  its 
liberties,  its  independence?  'When  the  house  is  on  fire,  shall  we 
not  first  try  to  put  out  the  blaze  before  stopping  to  ascertain  the 
incendiary?'  " 

These  arguments  have  been  repeated,  again  and  again  in  de- 
fense of  the  attitude  of  the  Social-Democracy,  in  Germany  and  in 
France. 

Even  in  the  neutral  countries  this  argument  has  been  used. 
Translated  into  Dutch  we  read  for  instance:  "When  the  ship 
leaks  must  we  not  seek,  first  of  all,  to  stop  the  hole?" 

To  be  sure.  Fie  upon  a  people  that  capitulates  before  invasion 
and  fie  upon  a  party  that  capitulates  before  the  enemy  within. 

But  there  is  one  thing  that  the  fireman  in  the  burning  house  has 
forgotten :  that  in  the  mouth  of  a  Socialist  the  phrase  "Defending 
one's  fatherland"  cannot  mean  playing  the  role  of  cannon  fodder 
under  the  command  of  an  imperialistic  bourgeoisie. 

Is  an  invasion  really  the  horror  of  all  horrors,  before  which  all 
class  conflict  within  the  country  must  subside  as  though  spell- 
bound by  some  supernatural  witchcraft  ?  According  to  the  police 
theory  of  bourgeois  patriotism  and  military  rule,  every  evidence 
of  the  class  struggle  is  a  crime  against  the  interests  of  the  country 
because  they  maintain  that  it  constitutes  a  weakening  of  the 
stamina  of  the  nation.  The  Social-Democracy  has  allowed  itself 
to  be  perverted  into  this  same  distorted  point  of  view.    Has  not 


92  THE  CRISIS 

the  history  of  modern  capitaHst  society  shown  that  in  the  eyes  of 
capitalist  society,  foreign  invasion  is  by  no  means  the  unmitigated 
terror  as  which  it  is  generally  painted ;  that  on  the  contrary  it  is  a 
measure  to  which  the  bourgeoisie  has  frequently  and  gladly 
resorted  as  an  effective  weapon  against  the  enemy  within?  Did 
not  the  Bourbons  and  the  aristocrats  of  France  invite  foreign 
invasion  against  the  Jacobites?  Did  not  the  Austrian  counter- 
revolution in  1849  call  out  the  French  invaders  against  Rome,  the 
Russian  against  Budapest?  Did  not  the  "Party  of  Law  and 
Order"  in  France  in  1850  openly  threaten  an  invasion  of  the  Cos- 
sacks in  order  to  bring  the  national  assembly  to  terms  ?  And  was 
not  the  Bonaparte  army  released,  and  the  support  of  the  Prussian 
army  against  the  Paris  Commune  assured,  by  the  famous  contract 
between  Jules  Favre,  Thiers  and  Co.,  and  Bismarck?  This  his- 
torical evidence  led  Karl  Marx,  45  years  ago,  to  expose  the 
"national  wars"  of  modern  capitalist  society  as  miserable  frauds. 
In  his  famous  address  to  the  General  Council  of  the  International 
on  the  downfall  of  the  Paris  Commune,  he  said : 

"That,  after  the  greatest  war  of  modern  times  the  belligerent 
armies,  the  victor  and  the  vanquished,  should  unite  for  the  mutual 
butchery  of  the  proletariat — this  incredible  event  proves,  not  as 
Bismarck  would  have  us  believe,  the  final  overthrow  of  the  new 
social  power — but  the  complete  disintegration  of  the  old  bour- 
geois society.  The  highest  heroic  accomplishment  of  which  the 
old  order  is  capable,  is  the  national  war.  And  this  has  now 
proved  to  be  a  fraud  perpetrated  by  government  for  no  other 
purpose  than  to  put  off  the  class  struggle,  a  fraud  that  is  bared 
as  soon  as  the  class  struggle  flares  up  in  a  civil  war.  Class  rule 
can  no  longer  hide  behind  a  national  unifonn.  The  national  gov- 
ernments are  united  against  the  proletariat." 

In  capitalist  history,  invasion  and  class  struggle  are  not  oppo- 
sites,  as  the  official  legend  would  have  us  believe,  but  one  is  the 
means  and  the  expression  of  the  other.    Just  as  invasion  is  the 


THE  CRISIS  93 

true  and  tried  weapon  in  the  hands  of  capital  against  the  class 
struggle,  so  on  the  other  hand  the  fearless  pursuit  of  the  class 
struggle  has  always  proven  the  most  effective  preventative  of 
foreign  invasions.  On  the  brink  of  modem  times  are  the 
examples  of  the  Italian  cities,  Florence,  and  Milano,  with  their 
century  of  bitter  struggle  against  the  Hohenstaufen.  The  stormy 
history  of  these  cities,  torn  by  inner  conflicts,  proves  that  the 
force  and  the  fury  of  inner  class  struggles  not  only  does  not 
weaken  the  defensive  powers  of  the  community,  but  that  on  the 
contrary,  from  their  fires  shoot  the  only  flames  that  are  strong 
enough  to  withstand  every  attack  from  a  foreign  foe. 

But  the  classic  example  of  our  own  times  is  the  great  French 
Revolution.  In  T 793  Paris,  the  heart  of  France,  was  surrounded 
by  enemies.  And  yet  Paris  and  France  at  that  time  did  not  suc- 
cumb to  the  invasion  of  a  stormy  flood  of  European  coalition ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  welded  its  force  in  the  face  of  the  growing  danger, 
to  a  more  gigantic  opposition.  If  France,  at  that  critical  time, 
was  able  to  meet  each  new  coalition  of  the  enemy  with  a  new 
miraculous  loosening  of  the  inmost  forces  of  society  in  the  great 
miraculous  and  undiminished  fighting  spirit,  it  was  only  because 
of  the  impetuous  loosening  of  the  inmost  forces  of  society  in  the 
great  struggle  of  the  classes  of  France.  Today,  in  the  perspective 
of  a  century,  it  is  clearly  discernible  that  only  this  intensification  of 
the  class  struggle,  that  only  the  Dictatorship  of  the  French  people 
and  their  fearless  radicalism,  could  produce  means  and  forces  out 
of  the  soil  of  France,  sufficient  to  defend  and  to  sustain  a  new- 
born society  against  a  world  of  enemies,  against  the  intrigues  of 
a  dynasty,  against  the  traitorous  machinations  of  the  aristocrats, 
against  the  attempts  of  the  clergy,  against  the  treachery  of  their 
generals,  against  the  opposition  of  sixty  departments  and  provin- 
cial capitals,  and  against  the  united  armies  and  navies  of 
monarchial  Europe.  The  centuries  have  proven  that  not  the  state 
of  siege,  but  relentless  class  struggle  is  the  power  that  awakens 
the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  the  moral  strength  of  the  masses,  that 


94  THE  CRISIS 

the  class  struggle  is  the  best   protection   and    the   best   defense 
against  a  foreign  enemy. 

This  same  tragic  quidproquo  victimized  the  Social-Democracy 
when  it  based  its  attitude  in  this  war  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
right  of  national  self-determination. 

It  is  true  that  Socialism  gives  to  every  people  the  right  of  inde- 
pendence and  the  freedom  of  independent  control  of  its  own 
destinies.  But  it  is  a  veritable  perversion  of  Socialism  to  regard 
present  day  capitalist  society  as  the  expression  of  this  self-deter- 
mination of  nations.  Where  is  there  a  nation  in  which  the  people 
have  had  the  right  to  determine  the  form  and  conditions  of  their 
national,  political  and  social  existence?  In  Germany  the  deter- 
mination of  the  people  found  concrete  expression  in  the  demands 
formulated  by  the  G«rman  revolutionary  democrats  of  1848;  the 
first  fighters  of  the  German  proletariat,  Marx,  Engels,  Lassalle, 
Bebel  and  Liebknecht,  proclaimed  and  fought  for  a  united  Ger- 
man Republic.  For  this  ideal  the  revolutionary  forces  in  Berlin 
and  in  Vienna,  in  those  tragic  days  of  March,  shed  their  heart's 
blood  upon  the  barricades.  To  carry  out  this  program,  Marx 
and  Engels  demanded  that  Prussia  take  up  arms  against  Czar- 
ism.  The  foremost  demand  made  in  the  national  program  was 
for  the  liquidation  of  "the  heap  of  organized  decay,  the  Hapsburg 
monarchy,"  as  well  as  of  two  dozen  other  dwarf  monarchies 
within  Germany  itself.  The  overthrow  of  the  German  revolu- 
tion, the  treachery  of  the  German  bourgeoisie  to  its  own 
democratic  ideals,  led  to  the  Bismarck  regime  and  to  its  creature, 
present-day  Greater  Prussia,  twenty-five  fatherlands  under  one 
helm,  the  German  empire.  Modern  Germany  is  built  upon  the 
grave  of  the  March  Revolution,  upon  the  wreckage  of  the  right 
of  self-determination  of  the  German  people.  The  present  war, 
supporting  Turkey  and  the  Hapsburg  monarchy,  and  strengthen- 
ing German  military  autocracy  is  a  second  burial  of  the  March 
revolutionists,  and  of  the  national  program  of  the  German  people. 


THE  CRISIS  95 

It  is  a  fiendish  jest  of  history  that  the  Social-Democrats,  the  heirs 
of  the  German  patriots  of  1848,  should  go  forth  in  this  war  with 
the  banner  of  "self-determination  of  nations"  held  aloft  in  their 
hands.  But,  perhaps  the  third  French  Republic,  with  its  colonial 
possessions  in  four  continents  and  its  colonial  horrors  in  two, 
is  the  expression  of  the  self-determination  of  the  French  nation  ? 
Or  the  British  nation,  with  its  India,  with  its  South  African  rule 
of  a  million  whites  over  a  population  of  five  million  colored 
people?    Or  perhaps  Turkey,  or  the  Empire  of  the  Czar? 

Capitalist  polfticians,  in  whose  eyes  the  rulers  of  the  people 
and  the  ruling  classes  are  the  nation,  can  honestly  speak  of  the 
"right  of  national  self-determination"  in  connection  with  such 
colonial  empires.  To  the  Socialist,  no  nation  is  free  whose 
national  existence  is  based  upon  the  enslavement  of  another 
people,  for  to  him  colonial  peoples,  too,  are  human  beings,  and, 
as  such,  parts  of  the  national  state.  International  Socialism 
recognizes  the  right  of  free  independent  nations,  with  equal 
rights.  But  Socialism  alone  can  create  such  nations,  can  bring 
self-determination  of  their  peoples.  This  slogan  of  Socialism  is 
like  all  its  others,  not  an  apology  for  existing  conditions,  but  a 
guide-post,  a  spur  for  the  revolutionary,  regenerative,  active 
policy  of  the  proletariat.  So  long  as  capitalist  states  exist,  i.  e., 
so  long  as  imperialistic  world  policies  determine  and  regulate  the 
inner  and  the  outer  life  of  a  nation,  there  can  be  no  "national 
self-determination"  either  in  war  or  in  peace. 

In  the  present  imperialistic  milieu  there  can  be  no  wars  of 
national  self-defense.  Every  socialist  policy  that  depends  upon 
this  determining  historic  milieu,  that  is  willing  to  fix  its  policies 
in  the  world  whirlpool  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  single  nation 
is  built  upon  a  foundation  of  sand. 

We  have  already  attempted  to  show  the  background  for  the 
present  conflict  between  Germany  and  her  opponents.  It  was 
necessary  to  show  up  more  clearly  the  actual  forces  and  relations 


96  THE  CRISIS 

that  constitute  the  motive  power  behind  the  present  war,  because 
this  legend  of  the  defense  of  the  existence,  the  freedom  and 
civiHzation  of  Germany  plays  an  important  part  in  the  attitude  of 
our  group  in  the  Reichstag  and  our  Socialist  press. 
Against  this  legend  historical  truth  must  be  emphasized  to  show 
that  this  is  a  war.  that  has  been  prepared  by  German  militarism 
and  its  world-political  ideas  for  years,  that  it  was  brought  about 
in  the  Summer  of  1914,  by  Austrian  and  German  diplomacy,  with 
a  full  realization  of  its  import. 

In  a  discussion  of  the  general  causes  of  the  war,  and  of  its 
significance,  the  question  of  the  "guilty  party"  is  completely 
beside  the  issue.  Germany  certainly  has  not  the  right  to  speak  of 
a  war  of  defense,  but  France  and  England  have  little  more 
justification.  They  too,  are  protecting,  not  their  national,  but  their 
world-political  existence,  their  old  imperialistic  possessions,  from 
the  attacks  of  the  German  upstart.  Doubtless  the  raids  of  Ger- 
man and  Austrian  imperialism  in  the  Orient  started  the  confla- 
gration, but  French  imperialism,  by  devouring  Morocco,  and 
English  imperialism,  in  its  attempts  to  rape  Mesopotamia,  and  all 
the  other  measures  that  were  calculated  to  secure  its  rule  of  force 
in  India,  Russia's  Baltic  policies,  aiming  toward  Constantinople, 
all  of  these  factors  have  carried  together  and  piled  up,  brand  for 
brand,  the  firewood  that  feeds  the  conflagration.  If  capitalist 
armaments  have  played  an  important  role  as  the  mainspring  that 
times  the  outbreak  of  the  catastrophe,  it  was  a  competition  of 
armaments  in  all  nations.  And  if  Germany  laid  the  cornerstone 
for  European  competitive  armaments  by  Bismarck's  policy  of 
1870,  this  policy  was  furthered  by  that  of  the  second  Empire  and 
by  the  military-colonial  policies  of  the  third  empire,  by  its  ex- 
pansions in  East  Asia  and  in  Africa. 

The  French  Socialists  have  some  slight  foundation  for  their 
illusion  of  "national  defense,"  because  neither  the  French  gov- 
ernment nor  the  French  people  entertained  the  slightest  warlike 
desires  in  July  1914.     "Today  everyone  in  France  is  honestly. 


THE  CRISIS  9? 

uprightly  and  without  reservation  for  peace,"  insisted  Jaures  in 
the  last  speech  of  his  life,  on  the  eve  of  the  war,  when  he  ad- 
dressed a  meeting  in  the  People's  House  in  Brussels.  This  was 
absolutely  true,  and  gives  the  psychological  explanation  for  the 
indignation  of  the  French  Socialists  when  this  criminal  war  was 
forced  upon  their  country.  But  this  fact  was  not  sufficient  to 
determine  the  Socialist  attitude  on  the  world  war  as  an  historic 
occurrence. 

The  events  that  bore  the  present  war  did  not  begin  in  July  1914 
but  reach  back  for  decades.  Thread  by  thread  they  have  been 
woven  together  on  the  loom  of  an  inexorable  natural  develop- 
ment, until  the  firm  net  of  imperialist  world  politics  has  encircled 
five  continents.  It  is  a  huge  historical  complex  of  eyents,  whose 
roots  reach  deep  down  into  the  Plutonic  deeps  of  economic  crea- 
tion, whose  outermost  branches  spread  out  and  point  away  into 
a  dimly  dawning  new  world,  events  before  whose  all-embracing 
immensity,  the  conception  of  guilt  and  retribution,  of  defense  and 
offense,  sink  into  pale  nothingness. 

Imperialism  is  not  the  creation  of  any  one  or  of  any  group  of 
states.  It  is  the  product  of  a  particular  stage  of  ripeness  in  the 
world  development  of  capital,  an  innately  international  condition, 
an  indivisible  whole,  that  is  recognizable  only  in  all  its  relations, 
and  from  which  no  nation  can  hold  aloof  at  will.  From  this  point 
of  view  only  is  it  possible  to  understand  correctly  the  question  of 
"national  defense"  in  the  present  war. 

The  national  state,  national  unity  and  independence  were  the 
ideological  shield  under  which  the  capitalist  nations  of  central 
Europe  constituted  themselves  in  the  past  century.  Capitalism 
is  incompatible  with  economic  and  political  divisions,  with  the 
accompanying  splitting  up  into  small  states.  It  needs  for  its 
development  large,  united  territories,  and  a  state  of  mental  and 
intellectual  development  in  the  nation  that  will  lift  the  demands 
and  needs  of  society  to  a  plane  corresponding  to  the  prevailing 


98  THE  CRISIS 

stage  of  capitalistic  production,  and  to  the  mechanism  of  modern 
capitalist  class  rule.  Before  capitalism  could  develop,  it  sought 
to  create  for  itself  a  territory  sharply  defined  by  national  limita- 
tions. This  program  was  carried  out  only  in  France  at  the  time 
of  the  great  revolution,  for  in  the  national  and  political  heritage 
left  to  Europe  by  the  feudal  middle  ages,  this  could  be  accom- 
plished only  by  revolutionary  measures.  In  the  rest  of  Europe  this 
nationalization,  like  the  revolutionary  movement  as  a  whole, 
remained  the  patchwork  of  half-kept  promises.  The  German 
empire,  modern  Italy,  Austria-Hungary,  and  Turkey,  the  Russian 
Empire  and  the  British  world-empire,  are  all  living  proofs  of  this 
fact.  The  national  program  could  play  a  historic  role  only  so 
long  as  it  represented  the  ideological  expression  of  a  growing 
bourgeoisie,  lusting  for  power,  until  it  had  fastened  its  class  rule, 
in  some  way  or  other,  upon  the  great  nations  of  central  Europe 
and  had  created  within  them  the  necessary  tools  and  conditions 
of  its  growth.  Since  then,  imperialism  has  buried  the  old  bour- 
geois democratic  program  completely  by  substituting  expansion- 
istic  activity  irrespective  of  national  relationships  for  the  original 
program  of  the  bourgeoisie  in  all  nations.  The  national  phrase, 
to  be  sure,  has  been  preserved,  but  its  real  content,  its  function 
has  been  perverted  into  its  very  opposite.  Today  the  nation  is 
but  a  cloak  that  covers  imperialistic  desires,  a  battle  cry  for  im- 
perialistic rivalries,  the  last  ideological  measure  with  which  the 
masses  can  be  persuaded  to  play  the  role  of  cannon  fodder  in 
imperialistic  wars. 

This  general  tendency  of  present  day  capitalist  policies  deter- 
mines the  policies  of  the  individual  states  as  their  supreme 
blindly  operating  law,  just  as  the  laws  of  economic  competition 
determine  the  conditions  under  which  the  individual  manufac- 
turer shall  produce. 

Let  us  assume  for  a  moment,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  for  the 
purpose  of  investigating  this  phantom  of  "national  wars"  that 
controls  Social-Democratic  politics  at  the  present  time,  that  in 


THE  CRISIS  99 

one  of  the  belligerent  states,  the  war  at  its  outbreak  was  purely 
one  of  national  defense.  Military  success  would  immediately 
demand  the  occupation  of  foreign  territory.  But  the  existence 
of  influential  capitalist  groups,  interested  in  imperialistic  annex- 
ations, will  awaken  expansionistic  appetites  as  the  war  goes  on. 
The  imperialistic  tendency  that,  at  the  beginning  of  hostilities, 
may  have  been  existent  only  in  embryo,  will  shoot  up  and  expand 
in  the  hothouse  atmosphere  of  war  until  they  will  in  a  short  time, 
determine  its  character,  its  aims  and  its  results.  Furthermore,  the 
system  of  alliance  between  military  states  that  has  ruled  the 
political  relations  of  these  nations  for  decades  in  the  past,  makes 
it  inevitable  that  each  of  the  belligerent  parties  in  the  course  of 
war,  should  try  to  bring  its  allies  to  its  assistance,  again  purely 
from  motives  of  self-defense.  Thus  one  country  after  another  is 
drawn  into  the  war,  inevitably  new  imperialistic  circles  are 
touched  and  others  are  created.  Thus  England  drew  in  Japan, 
and,  spreading  the  war  into  Asia,  has  brought  China  into  the 
circle  of  political  problems  and  has  influenced  the  existing  rivalry 
between  Japan  and  the  United  States,  between  England  and 
Japan,  thus  heaping  up  new  material  for  future  conflicts.  Thus 
Germany  has  dragged  Turkey  mto  the  war,  bringing  the  question 
of  Constantinople,  of  the  Balkans  and  of  Western  Asia  directly 
into  the  foreground  of  affairs.  Even  he  who  did  not  realize  at 
the  outset  that  the  world  war,  in  its  causes,  was  purely  impe- 
rialistic, cannot  fail  to  see  after  a  dispassionate  view  of  its  effects 
that  war,  under  the  present  conditions,  automatically  and  inevi- 
tably develops  into  a  process  of  world  division.  This  was  apparent 
from  the  very  first.  The  wavering  balance  of  power  between  the 
two  belligerent  parties  forces  each,  if  only  for  military  reasons, 
in  order  to  strengthen  its  own  position,  or  in  order  to  frustrate 
possible  attacks,  to  hold  the  neutral  nations  in  check  by  intensive 
deals  in  peoples  and  nations,  such  as  the  German-Austrian  offers 
to  Italy,  Rumania,  Bulgaria  and  Greece  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
English-Russian  bids  on  the  other.     The  "National  war  of  de- 


100  THE  CRISIS 

fense"  has  the  surprising  effect  of  creating,  even  in  the  neutral 
nations,  a  general  transformation  of  ownership  and  relative 
power,  always  in  direct  line  with  expansionistic  tendencies. 
Finally  the  fact  that  all  modern  capitalist  states  have  colonial 
possessions  that  will,  even  though  the  war  may  have  begun  as  a 
war  of  national  defense,  be  drawn  into  the  conflict  from  purely 
military  considerations,  the  fact  that  each  country  will  strive  to 
occupy  the  colonial  possessions  of  its  opponent,  or  at  least  to 
create  disturbances  therein,  automatically  turns  every  war  into 
an  imperialistic  world  conflagration. 

Thus  the  conception  of  even  that  modest,  devout  fatherland- 
loving  war  of  defense  that  has  become  the  ideal  of  our  parlia- 
mentarians and  editors  is  pure  fiction,  and  shows,  on  their  part,  a 
complete  lack  of  understanding  of  the  whole  war  and  its  world 
relations.  The  character  of  the  war  is  determined,  not  by  solemn 
declaration,  not  even  by  the  honest  intentions  of  leading  poli- 
ticians, but  by  the  momentary  configuration  of  society  and  its 
military  organizations.  At  the  first  glance  the  term  "national  war 
of  defense"  might  seem  applicable  in  the  case  of  a  country  like 
Switzerland.  But  Switzerland  is  no  national  state,  and,  therefore, 
no  object  of  comparison  with  other  modern  states.  Its  very 
"neutral"  existence,  its  luxury  of  a  militia,  are  after  all  only  the 
negative  fruits  of  a  latent  state  of  war  in  the  surrounding  great 
military  states.  It  will  hold  this  neutrality  only  so  long  as  it  is 
willing  to  oppose  this  condition.  How  quickly  such  a  neutral 
state  is  crushed  by  the  military  heel  of  imperialism  in  a  world 
war  the  fate  of  Belgium  shows.  This  brings  us  to  the  peculiar 
position  of  the  "small  nation."  A  classic  example  of  such 
"national  wars"  is  Servia.  If  ever  a  state,  according  to  formal 
considerations,  had  the  right  of  national  defense  on  its  side,  that 
state  is  Servia.  Deprived  through  Austrian  annexations  of  its 
national  unity,  threatened  by  Austria  in  its  very  existence  as'  a 
nation,  forced  by  Austria  into  war,  it  is  fighting,  according  to  all 
human  conceptions,  for  existence,  for  freedom  and  for  the  civili- 


THE  CRISIS  101 

zation  of  its  people.  But  if  the  Social-Democratic  group  is  right 
in  its  position,  then  the  Servian  Social-Democrats  who  protested 
against  the  war  in  the  parliament  at  Belgrade  and  refused  to  vote 
war  credits  are  actually  traitors  to  the  most  vital  interests  of  their 
own  nation.  In  reality  the  Servian  Socialists  Lapschewitsh  and 
Kanzlerowitsh  have  not  only  enrolled  their  names  in  letters  of 
gold  in  the  annals  of  the  international  socialist  movement,  but 
have  shown  a  clear  historical  conception  of  the  real  causes  of  the 
war.  In  voting  against  war  credits  they  therefore  have  done 
their  country  the  best  possible  service.  Servia  is  formally  en- 
gaged in  a  national  war  of  defense.  But  its  monarchy  and  its 
ruling  classes  are  filled  with  expansionist  desires  as  are  the  ruling 
classes  in  all  modern  states.  They  are  indifferent  to  ethnic 
lines,  and  thus  their  warfare  assumes  an  aggressive  character. 
Thus  Servia  is  today  reaching  out  toward  the  Adriatic  coast 
where  it  is  fighting  out  a  real  imperialistic  conflict  with  Italy  on 
the  backs  of  the  Albanians,  a  conflict  whose  final  outcome  will  be 
decided  not  by  either  of  the  powers  directly  interested,  but  by  the 
great  powers  that  will  speak  the  last  word  on  terms  of  peace. 
But  above  all  this  we  must  not  forget:  behind  Servian  national- 
ism stands  Russian  imperialism.  Servia  itself  is  only  a  pawn  in 
the  great  game  of  world  politics.  A  judgment  of  the  war  in 
Servia  from  a  point  of  view  that  fails  to  take  these  great  relations 
and  the  general  world-political  background  into  account,  is 
necessarily  without  foundation.  The  same  is  true  of  the  recent 
Balkan  War.  Regarded  as  an  isolated  occurrence,  the  young 
Balkan  States  were  historically  justified  in  defending  the  old 
democratic  program  of  the  national  state.  In  their  historical 
connection,  however,  which  makes  the  Balkan  the  burning  point 
and  the  center  of  imperialistic  world  policies,  these  Balkan  wars, 
also,  were  objectively  only  a  fragment  of  the  general  conflict,  a 
link  in  the  chain  of  events  that  led,  with  fatal  necessity,  to  the 
present  world  war.  After  the  Balkan  war  the  international 
Social-Democracy  tendered  to  the  Balkan  Socialists,  for  their 


103  THE  CRISIS 

determined  refusal  to  offer  moral  or  political  support  to  the  war, 
a  most  enthusiastic  ovation  at  the  peace  congress  at  Basel.  In 
this  act  alone  the  International  condemned  in  advance  the  position 
taken  by  the  German  and  French  Socialists  in  the  present  war. 

All  small  states,  as  for  instance  Holland,  are  today  in  a  posi- 
tion like  that  of  the  Balkan  states,  "When  the  ship  leaks,  the 
hole  must  be  stopped";  and  what,  forsooth,  could  little  Holland 
fight  for  but  for  its  national  existence  and  for  the  independence 
of  its  people?  If  we  consider  here  merely  the  determination  of 
the  Dutch  people,  even  of  its  ruling  classes,  the  question  is  doubt- 
lessly one  purely  of  national  defense.  But  again  proletarian 
politics  cannot  judge  according  to  the  subjective  purposes  of  a 
single  country.  Here  again  it  must  take  its  position  as  a  part  of 
the  International,  according  to  the  whole  conplexity  of  the  world's 
political  situation.  Holland,  too,  whether  it  wishes  to  be  or  not, 
is  only  a  small  wheel  in  the  great  machine  of  modem  world 
politics  and  diplomacy.  This  would  become  clear  at  once,  if 
Holland  were  actually  torn  into  the  maelstrom  of  the  world  war. 
Its  opponents  would  direct  their  attacks  against  its  colonies.  Auto- 
matically Dutch  warfare  would  turn  to  the  defense  of  its  present 
possessions.  The  defense  of  the  national  independence  of  the 
Dutch  people  on  the  North  Sea  would  expand  concretely  to 
the  defense  of  its  rule  and  right  of  exploitation  over  the  Malays 
in  the  East  Indian  Archipelago.  But  not  enough :  Dutch  militar- 
ism, if  forced  to  rely  upon  itself,  would  be  crushed  like  a  nutshell 
in  the  whirlpool  of  the  world  war.  Whether  it  wished  to  or  not 
it  would  become  a  member  of  one  of  the  great  national  alliances. 
On  one  side  or  the  other  it  must  be  the  bearer  and  the  tool  of 
purely  imperialistic  tendencies. 

Thus  it  is  always  the  historic  milieu  of  modem  imperialism  that 
determines  the  character  of  the  war  in  the  individual  countries, 
and  this  milieu  makes  a  war  of  national  self-defense  impossible. 

Kautsky  also  expressed  this,  only  a  few  years  ago,  in  his 
pamphlet  "Patriotism  and  Social-Democracy,"  Leipzig,  1907: 


THE  CRISIS  103 

"Though  the  patriotism  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  of  the  prole- 
tariat are  two  entirely  different,  actually  opposite  phenomena, 
there  are  situations  in  which  both  kinds  of  patriotism  may  join 
forces  for  united  action,  even  in  times  of  war.  The  bourgeoisie 
and  the  proletariat  of  a  nation  are  equally  interested  in  their 
national  independence  and  self-determination,  in  the  removal  of 
all  kinds  of  oppression  and  exploitation  at  the  hands  of  a  foreign 
nation.  In  the  national  conflicts  that  have  sprung  from  such 
attempts,  the  patriotism  of  the  proletariat  has  always  united  with 
that  of  the  bourgeoisie.  But  the  proletariat  has  become  a  power 
that  may  become  dangerous  to  the  ruling  classes  at  every  great 
national  upheaval ;  revolution  looms  dark  at  the  end  of  every  war, 
as  the  Paris  Commune  of  1871  and  Russian  terrorism  after  the 
Russian-Japanese  war  have  proven.  In  view  of  this  the  bour- 
geoisie of  those  nations  which  are  not  sufficiently  united  have 
actually  sacrificed  their  national  aims  where  these  can  be  main- 
tained only  at  the  expense  of  their  government,  for  they  hate  and 
fear  the  revolution  even  more  than  they  love  national  independ- 
ence and  greatness.  For  this  reason,  the  bourgeoisie  sacrifices 
the  independence  of  Poland  and  permits  ancient  constellations 
like  Austria  and  Turkey  to  remain  in  existence,  though  they  have 
been  doomed  to  destruction  for  more  than  a  generation.  Na- 
tional struggles  as  the  bringers  of  revolution  have  ceased  in 
civilized  Europe.  National  problems  that  today  can  be  solved 
only  by  war  or  revolution,  will  be  solved  in  the  future  only  by  the 
victory  of  the  proletariat.  But  then,  thanks  to  international  soli- 
darity, they  will  at  once  assume  a  form  entirely  different  from  that 
which  prevails  today  in  a  social  state  of  exploitation  and  oppres- 
sion. In  capitalistic  states  this  problem  needs  no  longer  to  trouble 
the  proletariat  in  its  practical  struggles.  It  must  divert  its  whole 
strength  to  other  problems."    (Page  12-14.) 

"Meanwhile  the  likelihood  that  proletarian  and  bourgeois 
patriotism  will  unite  to  protect  the  liberty  of  the  people  is  be- 
comings more  and  more  rare."    Kautsky  then  goes  on  to  say  thqt 


104  THE  CRISIS 

the  French  bourgeoisie  has  united  with  Czarism,  that  Russia 
has  ceased  to  be  a  danger  for  western  Europe  because  it  has 
been  weakened  by  the  Revolution.  "Under  these  circumstances 
a  war  in  defense  of  national  liberty  in  which  bourgeois  and 
proletarian  may  unite,  is  nowhere  to  be  expected."  (Page  16.) 

"We  have  already  seen  that  conflicts  which,  in  the  19th  century, 
might  still  have  led  some  liberty  loving  peoples  to  oppose  their 
neighbors,  by  warfare,  have  ceased  to  exist.  We  have  seen  that 
modem  militarism  nowhere  aims  to  defend  important  popular 
rights,  but  everywhere  strives  to  support  profits.  Its  activities 
are  dedicated  not  to  assure  the  independence  and  invulnerability 
of  its  own  nationality,  that  is  nowhere  threatened,  but  to  the 
assurance  and  the  extension  of  over-sea  conquests  that  again  only 
serve  the  aggrandizement  of  capitalist  profits.  At  the  present 
time  the  conflicts  between  states  can  bring  no  war  that  proletarian 
interests  would  not,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  energetically  oppose." 
(Page  23.) 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations,  what  shall  be  the  practical 
attitude  of  the  Social-Democracy  in  the  present  war?  Shall  it 
declare:  since  this  is  an  imperialistic  war,  since  we  do  not  enjoy 
in  our  country,  any  Socialist  self-determination,  its  existence  or 
non-existence  is  of  no  consequence  to  us,  and  we  will  surrender 
it  to  the  enemy?  Passive  fatalism  can  never  be  the  role  of  a 
revolutionary  party,  like  the  Social-Democracy.  It  must  neither 
place  itself  at  the  disposal  of  the  existing  class  state,  under  the 
command  of  the  ruling  classes,  nor  can  it  stand  silently  by  to  wait 
until  the  storm  is  past.  It  must  adopt  a  policy  of  active  class 
politics,  a  policy  that  will  whip  the  ruling  classes  forward  in  every 
great  social  crisis,  and  that  will  drive  the  crisis  itself  far  beyond 
its  original  extent.  That  is  the  role  that  the  Social-Democracy 
must  play  as  the  leader  of  the  fighting  proletariat.  Instead  of 
covering  this  imperialistic  war  with  a  lying  mantle  of  national 
self-defense,  the  Social-Democracy  should  have   demanded    the 


THE  CRISIS  105 

right  of  national  self-determination  seriously,  should  have  used 
it  as  a  lever  against  the  imperialistic  war. 

The  most  elementary  demand  of  national  defense  is  that  the 
nation  take  its  defense  into  its  own  hands.  The  first  step  in  this 
direction  is  the  militia;  not  only  the  immediate  armament  of  the 
entire  adult  male  populace,  but  above  all,  popular  decision  in  all 
questions  of  peace  and  war.  It  must  demand,  furthermore,  the 
immediate  removal  of  every  form  of  political  oppression,  since 
the  greatest  political  freedom  is  the  best  basis  for  national  de- 
fense. To  proclaim  these  fundamental  measures  of  national 
defense,  to  demand  their  realization,  that  was  the  first  duty  of 
the  Social-Democracy. 

For  forty  years  we  have  tried  to  prove  to  the  ruling  classes  as 
well  as  to  the  masses  of  the  people  that  only  the  militia  is  really 
able  to  defend  the  fatherland  and  to  make  it  invincible.  And  yet, 
when  the  first  test  came,  we  turned  over  the  defense  of  our 
country,  as  a  matter  of  course,  into  the  hands  of  a  standing  army, 
to  be  the  cannon  fodder  under  the  club  of  the  ruling  classes.  Our 
parliamentarians  apparently  did  not  even  notice  that  the  fervent 
wishes  with  which  they  sped  these  defenders  of  the  fatherland  to 
the  front  were,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  an  open  admission 
that  the  imperial  Prussian  standing  army  is  the  real  defender  of 
the  fatherland.  They  evidently  did  not  realize  that  by  this  ad- 
mission they  sacrificed  the  fulcrum  of  our  political  program,  that 
they  gave  up  the  militia  and  dissolved  the  practical  significance 
of  forty  years'  of  agitation  against  the  standing  army  into  thin 
air.  By  the  act  of  the  Social-Democratic  group  our  military 
program  became  a  Utopian  doctrine,  a  doctrinaire  obsession,  that 
none  could  possibly  take  seriously. 

The  masters  of  the  international  proletariat  saw  the  idea  of 
fatherland  defense  in  a  different  light.  When  the  proletariat  of 
Paris,  surrounded  by  Prussians  in  1871,  took  the  reins  of  the 
government  into  its  own  hands,  Marx  wrote  enthusiastically : 


106  THE  CRISIS 

"Paris,  the  center  and  seat  of  the  old  government  powers,  and 
simultaneously  the  social  center  of  gravity  of  the  French  working 
class,  Paris  has  risen  in  arms  against  the  attempt  of  Monsieur 
Thiers  and  his  Junkers  to  reinstate  and  perpetuate  the  govern- 
ment of  the  old  powers  of  imperial  rule.  Paris  was  in  a  position 
to  resist  only,  because,  through  the  state  of  siege,  it  was  rid  of  its 
army,  because  in  its  place  there  had  been  put  a  national  guard 
composed  chiefly  of  working  men.  It  was  necessary  that  this 
innovation  be  made  a  permanent  institution.  The  first  act  of  the 
Commune  was,  therefore,  the  suppression  of  the  standing  army 
and  the  substitution  of  an  armed  people. ...  If  now,  the  Commune 
was  the  true  representative  of  all  healthy  elements  of  French 
society  and,  therefore,  a  true  national  government,  it  was  likewise, 
as  a  proletarian  government,  as  the  daring  fighter  for  the  libera- 
tion of  labor,  international  in  the  truest  sense  of  that  word. 
Under  the  eyes  of  the  Prussian  army,  which  has  annexed  two 
French  Provinces  to  Germany,  the  Commune  has  annexed  the 
workers  of  a  whole  world  to  France."  (Address  of  the  General 
Council  of  the  International.) 

But  what  did  our  masters  say  concerning  the  role  to  be  played 
by  the  Social-Democracy  in  the  present  war?  In  1892  Friedrich 
Engels  expressed  the  following  opinion  concerning  the  fun- 
damental lines  along  which  the  attitude  of  proletarian  parties  in 
a  great  war  should  follow : 

"A  war  in  the  course  of  which  Russians  and  Frenchmen  should 
invade  Germany  would  mean  for  the  latter  a  life  and  death 
struggle.  Under  such  circumstances  it  could  assure  its  national 
existence  only  by  using  the  most  revolutionary  methods.  The 
present  government,  should  it  not  be  forced  to  do  so,  will  cer- 
tainly not  bring  on  the  revolution,  but  we  have  a  strong  party  that 
may  force  its  hand,  or  that,  should  it  be  necessary,  can  replace  it, 
the  Social-Democratic  party. 

"We  have  not  forgotten  the  glorious  example  of  France  in  1793. 


THE  CRISIS  107 

The  one  hundredth  anniversary  of  1793  is  approaching.  Should 
Russia's  desire  for  conquest,  or  the  chauvinistic  impatience  of  the 
French  Bourgeoisie,  check  the  victorious  but  peaceable  march  of 
the  German  Socialists,  the  latter  are  prepared — be  assured  of 
that — to  prove  to  the  world  that  the  German  proletarians  of  today 
are  not  unworthy  of  the  French  Sansculottes,  that  1893  will  be 
worthy  of  1793.  And  should  the  soldiers  of  Monsieur  Constans 
set  foot  upon  German  territory  we  will  meet  them  with  the  words 
of  the  Marseillaise : 

"Shall  hateful  tyrants,  mischief  breeding, 
With  hireling  host,  a  ruffian  band. 
Affright  and  desolate  the  land?" 

"In  short,  peace  assures  the  victory  of  the  Social-Democratic 
party  in  about  ten  years.  The  war  will  bring  either  victory  in 
two  or  three  years  or  its  absolute  ruin  for  at  least  fifteen  or 
twenty  years." 

When  Engels  wrote  these  words,  he  had  in  mind  a  situation 
entirely  different  from  the  one  existing  today.  In  his  mind's  eye, 
ancient  Czarism  still  loomed  threateningly  in  the  background. 
We  have  already  seen  the  great  Russian  Revolution.  He  thought, 
furthermore,  of  a  real  national  war  of  defense,  of  a  Germany 
attacked  on  two  sides,  on  the  East  and  on  the  West  by  two  enemy 
forces.  Finally,  he  overestimated  the  ripeness  of  conditions  in 
Germany  and  the  likelihood  of  a  social  revolution,  as  all  true 
fighters  are  wont  to  overrate  the  real  tempo  of  development.  But 
for  all  that,  his  sentences  prove  with  remarkable  clearness,  that 
Engels  meant  by  national,  defense  in  the  sense  of  the  Social- 
Democracy,  not  the  support  of  a  Prussian  Junker  military  govern- 
ment and  its  Generalstab,  but  a  revolutionary  action  after  the 
example  of  the  French  Jacobites. 

Yes,  Socialists  should  defend  their  country  in  great  historical 
crises,  and  here  lies  the  great  fault  of  the  German  Social-Demo- 


108  THE  CRISIS 

cratic  Reichstag  group.  When  it  announced  on  the  4th  of  August, 
'"in  this  hour  of  danger,  we  will  not  desert  our  fatherland,"  it 
denied  its  own  words  in  the  same  breath.  For  truly  it  has 
deserted  its  fatherland  in  its  hour  of  greatest  danger.  The 
highest  duty  of  the  Social-Democracy  toward  its  fatherland  de- 
manded that  it  expose  the  real  background  of  this  imperialistic 
war,  that  it  rend  the  net  of  imperialistic  and  diplomatic  lies  that 
covers  the  eyes  of  the  people.  It  was  their  duty  to  speak  loudly 
and  clearly,  to  proclaim  to  the  people  of  Germany  that  in  this  war 
victory  and  defeat  would  be  equally  fatal,  to  oppose  the  gagging 
of  the  fatherland  by  a  state  of  siege,  to  demand  that  the  people 
alone  decide  on  war  and  peace,  to  demand  a  permanent  se,ssion 
of  Parliament  for  the  period  of  the  war,  to  assume  a  watchful 
control  over  the  government  by  parliament,  and  over  parliament 
by  the  people,  to  demand  the  immediate  removal  of  all  political 
inequalities,  since  only  a  free  people  can  adequately  govern  its 
country,  and  finally,  to  oppose  to  the  imperialist  war,  based  as  it 
was  upon  the  most  reactionary  forces  in  Europe,  the  program  of 
Marx,  of  Engels,  and  Lassalle. 

That  was  the  flag  that  should  have  waved  over  the  country. 
That  would  have  been  truly  national,  truly  free,  in  harmony  with 
the  best  traditions  of  Germany  and  the  International  class  policy 
of  the  proletariat. 

The  great  historical  hour  of  the  world  war  obviously  demanded 
a  unanimous  political  accomplishment,  a  broadminded,  compre- 
hensive attitude  that  only  the  Social-Democracy  is  destined  to 
give.  Instead,  there  followed,  on  the  part  of  the  parliamentary 
representatives  of  the  working  class,  a  miserable  collapse.  The 
Social-Democracy  did  not  adopt  the  wrong  policy — it  had  no 
policy  whatsoever.  It  has  wiped  itself  out  completely  as  a  class 
party  with  a  world-conception  of  its  own,  has  delivered  the 
country,  without  a  word  of  protest,  to  the  fate  of  imperialistic 
war  without,  to  the  dictatorship  of  the  sword  within.  Nay  more, 
it  has  taken  the  responsibility  for  the  war  upon  its  own  shoulders. 


THE  CRISIS  109 

The  declaration  of  the  "Reichstag  group"  says :  "We  have  voted 
only  the  means  for  our  country's  defense.  We  decline  all  respon- 
sibility for  the  war."  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  truth  lies  in 
exactly  the  opposite  direction.  The  means  for  "national  defense," 
i.  e.,  for  imperialistic  mass  butchery  by  the  armed  forces  of  the 
military  monarchy,  were  not  voted  by  the  Social-Democracy.  For 
the  availability  of  the  war  credits  did  not  in  the  least  depend  upon 
the  Social-Democracy.  They,  as  a  minority,  stood  against  a  com- 
pact three-quarters  majority  of  the  capitalist  Reichstag.  The 
Social-Democracy  group  accomplished  only  one  thing  by  voting 
in  favor  of  the  war  credits.  It  placed  upon  the  war  the  stamp  of 
democratic  fatherland  defense,  and  supported  and  sustained  the 
fictions  that  were  propagated  by  the  government  concerning 
the  actual  conditions  and  problems  of  the  war. 

Thus  the  serious  dilemma  between  the  national  interests  and 
international  solidarity  of  the  proletariat,  the  tragic  conflict  that 
made  our  parliamentarians  fall  "with  heavy  heart"  to  the  side  of 
imperialistic  warfare,  was  a  mere  figment  of  the  imagination,  a 
bourgeois  nationalist  fiction.  Between  the  national  interests  and 
the  class  interests  of  the  proletariat,  in  war  and  in  peace,  there  is 
actually  complete  harmony.  Both  demand  the  most  energetic 
prosecution  of  the  class  struggle,  and  the  most  determined  in- 
sistence on  the  Social-Democratic  program. 

But  what  action  shbuld  the  party  have  taken  to  give  to  our 
opposition  to  the  war  and  to  our  war  demands  weight  and  em- 
phasis? Should  it  have  proclaimed  a  general  strike?  Should  it 
have  called  upon  the  soldiers  to  refuse  military  service?  Thus 
the  question  is  generally  asked.  To  answer  with  a  simple  yes 
or  no,  were  just  as  ridiculous  as  to  decide :  "When  war  breaks  out 
we  will  start  a  revolution."  Revolutions  are  not  "made"  and 
great  movements  of  the  people  are  not  produced  according  to 
technical  recipes  that  repose  in  the  pockets  of  the  party  leaders. 
Small  circles  of  conspirators  may  organize  a  riot  for  a  certain 
day  and  a  certain  hour,  can  give  their  small  group  of  supporters 


110  THE  CRISIS 

the  signal  to  begin.  Mass  movements  in  great  historical  crises 
cannot  be  initiated  by  such  primitive  measures.  The  best  pre- 
pared mass  strike  may  break  down  miserably  at  the  very  moment 
when  the  party  leaders  give  the  signal,  may  collapse  completely 
before  the  first  attack.  The  success  of  great  popular  movements 
depends,  aye,  the  very  time  and  circumstance  of  their  inception 
is  decided,  by  a  number  of  economic,  political  and  psychological 
factors.  The  existing  degree  of  tension  between  the  classes,  the 
degree  of  intelligence  of  the  masses  and  the  degree  or  ripeness 
of  their  spirit  of  resistance — all  these  factors,  which  are  incal- 
culable, are  premises  that  cannot  be  artificially  created  by  any 
party.  That  is  the  difference  between  great  historical  upheavals, 
and  the  small  show-demonstrations  that  a  well  disciplined  party 
can  carry  out  in  times  of  peace,  orderly,  well-trained  perform- 
ances, responding  obediently  to  the  baton  in  the  hands  of  the 
party  leaders.  The  great  historical  hour  itself  creates  the  forms 
that  will  carry  the  revolutionary  movement  to  a  successful  out- 
come, creates  and  improvises  new  weapons,  enriches  the  arsenal 
of  the  people  with  weapons  unknown  and  unheard  of  by  the 
parties  and  their  leaders. 

What  the  Social-Democracy  as  the  advance  guard  of  the  class- 
conscious  proletariat  should  have  been  able  to  give  was  not 
ridiculous  precepts  and  technical  recipes,  but  a  political  slogan, 
clearness  concerning  the  political  problems  and  interests  of  the 
proletariat  in  times  of  war. 

For  what  has  been  said  of  mass  strikes  in  the  Russian  Revo- 
lution is  equally  applicable  to  every  mass  movement :  "While  the 
revolutionary  period  itself  commands  the  creation  and  the  com- 
putation and  payment  of  the  cost  of  a  mass  strike,  the  leaders  of 
the  Social-Democracy  have  an  entirely  different  mission  to  fill. 
Instead  of  concerning  itself  with  the  technical  mechanism  of  the 
mass  movement,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Social-Democracy  to  under- 
take the  political  leadership  even  in  the  midst  of  a  historical 
crisis.    To  give  the  slogan,  to  determine  the   direction    of    the 


THE  CRISIS  111 

struggle,  to  so  direct  the  tactics  of  the  poHtical  conflict  that  in  its 
every  phase  and  movement  the  whole  sum  of  available 
and  already  mobilized  active  force  of  the  proletariat  is  realized 
and  finds  expression  in  the  attitude  of  the  party,  that  the  tactics 
of  the  Social-Democracy  in  determination  and  vigor  shall  never 
be  weaker  than  is  justified  by  the  actual  power  at  its  back,  but 
shall  rather  hasten  in  advance  of  its  actual  power,  that  is  the 
important  problem  of  the  party  leadership  in  a  great  historical 
crisis.  Then  this  leadership  will  become,  in  a  sense,  the  technical 
leadership.  A  determined,  consistent,  progressive  course  of 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Social-Democracy  will  create  in  the 
masses  assurance,  self-confidence  and  a  fearless  fighting  spirit. 
A  weakly  vacillating  course,  based  upon  a  low  estimate  of  the 
powers  of  the  proletariat,  lames  and  confuses  the  masses.  In  the 
first  case  mass  action  will  break  out  "of  its  own  accord"  and  "at 
the  right  time" ;  in  the  second  even  a  direct  call  to  action  on  the 
part  of  the  leaders  often  remains  ineflFectual."  (Rosa  Luxem- 
burg, "Mass  Strike,  Party  and  Labor  Unions,"  Hamburg,  1907.) 

Far  more  important  that  the  outward,  technical  form  of  the 
action  is  its  political  content.  Thus  the  parliamentary  stage,  for 
instance,  the  only  far  reaching  and  internationally  conspicuous 
platform,  could  have  become  a  mighty  motive  power  for  the 
awakening  of  the  people,  had  it  been  used  by  the  Social-Demo- 
cratic representatives  to  proclaim  loudly  and  distinctly,  the 
interests,  the  problems  and  the  demands  of  the  working  class. 

"Would  the  masses  have  supported  the  Social-Democracy  in  its. 
attitude  against  the  war?"  That  is  a  question  that  no  one  can 
answer.  But  neither  is  it  an  important  one.  Did  our  parliamen- 
tarians demand  an  absolute  assurance  of  victory  from  the 
generals  of  the  Prussian  army  before  voting  in  favor  of  war 
credits  ?  What  is  true  of  military  armies  is  equally  true  of  revo- 
lutionary armies.  They  go  into  the  fight,  wherever  necessity 
demands  it,  without  previous  assurance  of  success.    At  the  worst, 


112  THE  CRISIS 

the  party  would  have  been  doomed,  in  the  first  few  months  of 
the  war,  to  political  ineffectuality. 

Perhaps  the  bitterest  persecutions  would  have  been  inflicted 
upon  our  party  for  its  manly  stand,  as  they  were,  in  1870,  the 
reward  of  Liebknecht  and  Bebel.  "But  what  does  that  matter," 
said  Ignatz  Auer,  simply,  in  his  speech  on  the  Sedanfeier  in  1895. 
"A  party  that  is  to  conquer  the  world  must  bear  its  principles 
aloft  without  counting  the  dangers  that  this  may  bring.  To  act 
differently  is  to  be  lost!" 

"It  is  never  easy  to  swim  against  the  current,"  said  the  older 
Liebknecht,  "And  when  the  stream  rushes  on  with  the  rapidity 
and  the  power  of  a  Niagara  it  does  not  become  easier!  Our 
older  comrades  still  remember-  the  hatred  of  that  year  of  greatest 
national  shame,  under  the  Socialist  exception  laws  of  1878.  At 
that  time  millions  looked  upon  every  Social-Democrat  as  having 
played  the  part  of  a  murderer  and  a  vile  criminal  in  1870;  the 
Socialist  had  been  in  the  eyes  of  the  masses  a  traitor  and  an 
enemy.  Such  outbreaks  of  the  "popular  soul"  are  astounding, 
stunning,  crushing  in  their  elemental  fury.  One  feels  powerless, 
as  before  a  higher  power.  It  is  a  real  force  majeure.  There  is  no 
tangible  opponent.  It  'is  like  an  epidemic,  in  the  people,  in  the 
air,  everywhere. 

"The  outbreak  of  1878  cannot,  however,  be  compared  with  the 
outbreak  in  1870.  This  hurricane  of  human  passions, 
breaking,  bending,  destroying  all  that  stands  in  its  way — and  with 
it  the  terrible  machinery  of  militarism,  in  fullest,  most  horrible 
activity;  and  we  stand  between  the  crushing  iron  wheels,  whose 
touch  means  instant  death,  between  iron  arms,  that  threaten  every 
moment  to  catch  us.  By  the  side  of  this  elemental  force  of  libe- 
rated spirits  stood  the  most  complete  mechanism  of  the  art  of 
murder  the  world  had  hitherto  seen ;  and  all  in  the  wildest  activ- 
ity, every  boiler  heated  to  the  bursting  point.  At  such  a  time, 
what  is  the  will  and  the  strength  of  the  individual?    Especially, 


THE  CRISIS  113 

when  one  feels  that  one  represents  a  tiny  minority,  that  one  pos- 
sesses no  firm  support  in  the  people  itself. 

"At  that  time  our  party  was  still  in  a  period  of  development. 
We  were  placed  before  the  most  serious  test,  at  a  time  when  we 
did  not  yet  possess  the  organization  necessary  to  meet  it.  When 
the  anti-socialist  movement  came  in  the  year  of  shame  of  our 
enemies,  in  the  year  of  honor  for  the  Social-Democracy,  then  we 
had  already  a  strong,  widespread  organization.  Each  and  every 
one  of  us  was  strengthened  by  the  feeling  that  he  possessed  a 
mighty  support  in  the  organized  movement  that  stood  behind  him, 
and  no  sane  person  could  conceive  of  the  downfall  of  the  party. 

"So  it  was  no  small  thing  at  that  time  to  swim  against  the  cur- 
rent. But  what  is  to  be  done,  must  be  done.  And  so  we  gritted  our 
teeth  in  the  face  of  the  inevitable.  There  was  no  time  for  fear  .  "*.  . 
Certainly  Bebel  and  I  .  .  .  never  for  a  moment  thought  of  the 
warning.  We  did  not  retreat.  We  had  to  hold  our  posts,  come 
what  might !" 

They  stuck  to  their  posts,  and  for  forty  years  the  Social-Demo- 
cracy lived  upon  the  moral  strength  with  which  it  had  opposed 
a  world  of  enemies. 

The  same  thing  would  have  happened  now.  At  first  we  would 
perhaps  have  accomplished  nothing  but  to  save  the  honor  of  the 
proletariat  and  thousands  upon  thousands  of  proletarians  who 
are  dying  in  the  trenches  in  mental  darkness,  would  not  have 
died  in  spiritual  confusion,  but  with  the  one  certainty  that  that 
which  has  been  everything  in  their  lives,  the  international,  liber- 
ating Social-Democracy,  is  more  than  the  figment  of  a  dream. 

The  voice  of  our  party  would  have  acted  as  a  wet  blanket  upon 
the  chauvinistic  intoxication  of  the  masses.  It  would  have  pre- 
served the  intelligent  proletariat  from  delirium,  would  have  made 
it  more  difficult  for  Imperialism  to  poison  and  to  stupefy  the 
minds  of  the  people.  The  crusade  against  the  Social-Democracy 
would  have  awakened  the  masses  in  an  incredible  short  time. 


114  THE  CRISIS     - 

And  as  the  war  went  on,  as  the  horror  of  endless  massacre  and 
bloodshed  in  all  countries  grew  and  grew,  as  its  imperialistic  hoof 
became  more  and  more  evident,  as  the  exploitation  by  bloodthirsty 
speculators  became  more  and  more  shameless,  every  live,  honest, 
progressive  and  humane  element  in  the  masses  would  have  rallied 
to  the  standard  of  the  Social-Democracy.  The  German  Social- 
Democracy  would  have  stood  in  the  midst  of  this  mad  whirlpool 
of  collapse  and  decay,  like  a  rock  in  a  stormy  sea,  would  have 
been  the  lighthouse  of  the  whole  International,  guiding  and  lead- 
ing the  labor  movements  of  every  country  of  the  earth.  The 
unparalleled  moral  prestige  that  lay  in  the  hands  of  the  German 
Socialists  would  have  reacted  upon  the  Socialists  of  all  nations 
in  a  very  short  time.  Peace  sentiments  would  have  spread  like 
wildfire  and  the  popular  demand  for  peace  in  all  countries  would 
have  hastened  the  end  of  the  slaughter,  would  have  decreased 
the  number  of  its  victims. 

The  German  proletariat  would  have  remained  the  lighthouse- 
keeper  of  Socialism  and  of  human  emancipation. 

Truly  this  was  a  task  not  unworthy  of  the  disciples  of  Marx, 
Engels,  and  Lassalle. 


THE  CRISIS  115 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

In  spite  of  military  dictatorship  and  press  censorship,  in  spite 
of  the  downfall  of  the  Social-Democracy,  in  spite  of  fratricidal 
war,  the  class  struggle  arises  from  civil  peace  with  elemental 
force :  from  the  blood  and  smoke  of  the  battlefields  the  solidarity 
of  international  labor  arises.  Not  in  weak  attempts  to  artificially 
galvanize  the  old  International,  not  in  pledges  rendered  now  here, 
now  there,  to  stand  together  after  the  war  is  over.  No,  here, 
in  the  war,  out  of  the  war  arises,  with  a  new  might  and  intensity, 
the  recognition  that  the  proletarians  of  all  lands  have  one  and  the 
same  interest.  The  world  war,  itself,  utterly  disproves  the  false- 
hoods it  has  created. 

Victory  or  defeat?  It  is  the  slogan  of  all-powerful  militarism 
in  every  belligerent  nation,  and,  like  an  echo,  the  social-democratic 
leaders  have  adopted  it.  Victory  or  defeat  has  become  the 
highest  motive  of  the  workers  of  Germany,  of  France,  of  Eng- 
land and  of  others,  just  as  for  the  ruling  classes  of  these  nations. 
When  the  cannons  thunder,  all  proletarian  interests  subside  before 
the  desire  for  victory  of  their  own,  i.  e.,  for  defeat  of  the  other 
countries.    And  yet,  what  can  victory  bring  to  the  proletariat  ? 

According  to  the  official  version  of  the  leaders  of  the  Social- 
Democracy,  that  was  so  readily  adopted  without  criticism,  victory 
of  the  German  forces  would  mean,  for  Germany,  unhampered, 
boimdless  industrial  growth;  defeat,  however,  industrial  ruin. 
On  the  whole,  this  conception  coincides  with  that  generally  ac- 
cepted during  the  war  of  1870.  But  the  period  of  capitalist 
growth  that  followed  the  war  of  1870  was  not  caused  by  the  war, 
but  resulted  rather  from  the  political  union  of  the  various  German 
states,  even  though  this  union  took  the  form  of  the  crippled  figure 
that  Bismarck  established  as  the  German  empire.     Here  the  in- 


116  THE  CRISIS 

dustrial  impetus  came  from  this  union,  in  spite  of  the  war  and 
the  manifold  reactionary  hindrances  that  followed  in  its  wake. 
What  the  victorious  war  itself  accomplished  was  to  firmly  estab- 
lish the  military  monarchy  and  Prussian  junkerdom  in  Germany; 
the  defeat  of  France  led  to  the  liquidation  of  its  Empire  and  the 
establishment  of  a  Republic.  But  today  the  situation  is  different 
in  all  of  the  nations  in  question.  Today  war  does  not  function 
as  a  dynamic  force  to  provide  for  rising  young  capitalism  the 
indispensable  political  conditions  for  its  "national"  development. 
Modern  war  appears  in  this  role  only  in  Serbia,  and  there  only 
as  an  isolated  fragment.  Reduced  to  its  objective  historic  sig- 
nificance, the  present  world  war  as  a  whole  is  a  competitive 
struggle  of  a  fully  developed  capitalism  for  world  supremacy,  for 
the  exploitation  of  the  last  remnant  of  non-capitalistic  world 
zones.  This  fact  gives  to  the  war  and  its  political  after  effects  an 
entirely  new  character.  The  high  stage  of  world-industrial 
development  in  capitalistic  production  finds  expression  in  the 
extraordinary  technical  development  and  destructiveness  of  the 
instruments  of  war,  as  in  their  practically  uniform  degree  of 
perfection  in  all  belligerent  countries.  The  international  organi- 
zation of  war  industries  is  reflected  in  the  military  instability,  that 
persistently  brings  back  the  scales,  through  all  partial  decisions 
and  variations,  to  their  true  balance,  and  pushes  a  general  decision 
further  and  further  into  the  future.  The  indecision  of  military 
results,  moreover,  has  the  effect  that  a  constant  stream  of  new 
reserves,  from  the  belligerent  nations  as  well  as  from  nations 
hitherto  neutral,  are  sent  to  the  front.  Everywhere  war  finds 
material  enough  for  imperialist  desires  and  conflicts ;  itself  creates 
new  material  to  feed  the  conflagration  that  spreads  out  like  a 
prairie  fire.  But  the  greater  the  masses,  and  the  greater  the 
number  of  nations  that  are  dragged  into  this  world-war,  the 
longer  will  it  rage.  All  of  these  things  together  prove,  even 
before  any  military  decision  of  victory  or  defeat  can  be  estab- 
lished, that  the  result  of  the  war  will  be :  the  economic  ruin  of  all 


THE  CRISIS  ll'? 

participating  nations,  and,  in  a  steadily  growing  measure,  of  the 
formally  neutral  nations,  a  phenomenon  entirely  distinct  from  the 
earlier  wars  of  modern  times.  Every  month  of  war  affirms  and 
augments  this  effect,  and  thus  takes  away,  in  advance,  the  ex- 
pected fruits  of  military  victory  for  a  decade  to  come.  This,  in 
the  last  analysis,  neither  victory  nor  defeat  can  alter;  on  the 
contrary  it  makes  a  purely  military  decision  altogether  doubtful, 
and  increases  the  likelihood  that  the  war  will  finally  end  through 
a  general  and  extreme  exhaustion.  But  even  a  victorious  Ger- 
many, under  such  circumstances,  even  if  its  imperialistic  war 
agitators  should  succeed  in  carrying  on  the  mass  murder  to  the 
absolute  destruction  of  their  opponents,  even  if  their  most  daring 
dreams  should  be  fulfilled — would  win  but  a  Pyrrhic  victory.  A 
number  of  annexed  territories,  impoverished  and  depopulated, 
and  a  grinning  ruin  under  its  own  roof,  would  be  its  trophies. 
Nothing  can  hide  this,  once  the  painted  stage  properties  of  finan- 
cial war-bond  transactions,  and  the  Potemkin  villages  of  an 
"unalterable  prosperity"  kept  up  by  war  orders,  are  pushed  aside. 
The  most  superficial  observer  cannot  but  see  that  even  the  most 
victorious  nation  cannot  count  on  war  indemnities  that  will  stand 
in  any  relation  to  the  wounds  that  the  war  has  inflicted.  Perhaps 
they  may  see  in  the  still  greater  economic  ruin  of  the  defeated 
opponents,  England  and  France,  the  very  countries  with  which 
Germany  was  most  closely  united  by  industrial  relations,  upon 
whose  recuperation  its  own  prosperity  so  much  depends,  a  sub- 
stitute and  an  augmentation  for  their  victory.  Such  are  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  German  people,  even  after  a 
victorious  war,  would  be  required  to  pay,  in  cold  cash,  the  war 
bonds  that  were  "voted"  on  credit  by  the  patriotic  parliament; 
i.  e.,  to  take  upon  their  shoulders  an  immeasurable  burden  of 
taxation,  and  a  strengthened  military  dictatorship  as  the  only  per- 
manent tangible  fruit  of  victory. 

Should  we  now  seek  to  imagine  the  worst  possible  effects  of 


118  THE  CRISIS 

a  defeat,  we  shall  find  that  they  resemble,  line  for  line,  with  the 
exception  of  imperialistic  annexations,  the  same  picture  that  pre- 
sented itself  as  the  irrefutable  consequence  of  victory :  the  effects 
of  war  today  are  so  far  reaching,  so  deeply  rooted,  that  its 
military  outcome  can  alter  but  little  in  its  final  consequences. 

But  let  us  assume,  for  the  moment,  that  the  victorious  nation 
should  find  itself  in  the  position  to  avoid  the  great  catastrophe 
for  its  own  people,  should  be  able  to  tkrow  the  whole  burden  of 
the  war  upon  the  shoulders  of  its  defeated  opponent,  should  be 
able  to  choke  off  the  industrial  development  of  the  latter  by  all 
sorts  of  hindrances.  Can  the  German  labor  movement  hope  for 
successful  development,  so  long  as  the  activity  of  the  French, 
English,  Belgian  and  Italian  laborers  is  hampered  by  industrial 
retrogression?  Before  1870  the  labor  movements  of  the  various 
nations  grew  independently  of  each  other.  The  action  of  the 
nations  grew,  independently  of  each  other.  The  action  of  the 
labor  movement  of  a  single  city  often  controlled  the  destinies  of 
the  whole  labor  movement.  On  the  streets  of  Paris  the  battles 
of  the  working  class  were  fought  out  and  decided.  The  modem 
labor  movement,  its  laborious  daily  struggle  in  the  industries  of 
the  world,  its  mass  organization,  are  based  upon  the  co-operation 
of  the  workers  in  all  capitalistically  producing  countries.  If  the 
truism  that  the  cause  of  labor  can  thrive  only  upon  a  virile,  pul- 
sating industrial  life  applies,  then  it  is  true  not  only  for  Germany, 
but  for  France,  England,  Belgium,  Russia,  and  Italy  as  well.  And 
if  the  labor  movement  in  all  of  the  capitalist  states  of  Europe 
becomes  stagnant,  if  industrial  conditions  there  result  in  low 
wages,  weakened  labor  unions,  and  a  diminished  power  of  re- 
sistance on  the  part  of  labor,  labor  unionism  in  Germany  cannot 
possibly  flourish.  From  this  point  of  view  the  loss  sustained  by 
the  working  class  in  its  industrial  struggle  is  in  the  last  analysis 
identical,  whether  German  capital  be  strengthened  at  the  expense 
of  the  French  or  English  capital  at  the  expense  of  the  German. 


THE  CRISIS  119 

But  let  us  investigate  the  political  effects  of  the  war.  Here 
differentiation  should  be  less  difficult  than  upon  the  economic 
side,  for  the  sympathies  and  the  partisanship  of  the  proletariat 
have  always  tended  toward  the  side  that  defended  progress 
against  reaction.  Which  side,  in  the  present  war,  represents 
progress,  which  side  reaction?  It  is  clear  that  this  question  can- 
not be  decided  according  to  the  outward  insignias  that  mark  the 
political  character  of  the  belligerent  nations  as  "democracy"  and 
absolutism.  They  must  be  judged  solely  according  to  the  tenden- 
cies of  their  respective  world  pdlicies. 

Before  we  can  determine  what  a  German  victory  can  win  for 
the  German  proletariat  we  must  consider  its  effect  upon  the  gen- 
eral status  of  political  conditions  all  over  Europe.  A  decisive 
victory  for  Germany  would  mean,  in  the  first  place,  the  annexa- 
tion of  Belgium,  as  well  as  of  a  possible  number  of  territories  in 
the  East  and  West  and  a  part  of  the  French  colonies ;  the  sustain- 
ing of  the  Hapsburg  Monarchy  and  its  aggrandizement  by  a 
number  of  new  territories ;  finally  the  €stablishment  of  a  fictitious 
"integrity"  of  Turkey,  under  a  German  protectorate — i.  e.,  the 
conversion  of  Asia  Minor  and  Mesopotamia,  in  one  form  or 
another,  into  German  provinces.  In  the  end  this  would  result  in 
the  actual  military  and  economic  hegemony  of  Germany  in 
Europe.  Not  because  they  are  in  accord  with  the  desires  of  im- 
perialist agitators  are  these  consequences  of  an  absolute  German 
military  victory  to  be  expected,  but  because  they  are  the  inevit- 
able outgrowth  of  the  world-political  position  that  Germany  has 
adopted,  of  conflicting  interests  with  England,  France,  and  Russia, 
in  which  Germany  has  been  involved,  and  which  have  grown, 
during  the  course  of  the  war,  far  beyond  their  original  dimen- 
sions. It  is  sufficient  to  recall  these  facts  to  realize  that  they 
could  under  no  circumstances  .establish  a  permanent  world- 
political  equilibrium.  Though  this  war  may  mean  ruin  for  all 
of  its  participants,  and  worse  for  its  defeated,  the  preparations 


120  THE  CRISIS 

for  a  new  world  war,  under  England's  leadership,  would  begin 
on  the  day  after  peace  is  declared,  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of 
Prussian-German  militarism  that  would  rest  upon  Europe  and 
Asia.  A  German  victory  would  be  the  prelude  to  an  early  second 
world-war,  and  therefore,  for  this  reason,  but  the  signal  for  new 
feverish  armaments,  for  the  unleashing  of  the  blackest  reaction 
in  every  country,  but  particularly  in  Germany.  On  the  other 
hand  a  victory  of  England  or  France  would  mean,  in  all  likeli- 
hood, for  Germany,  the  loss  of  a  part  of  her  colonies,  as  well  as  of 
Alsace-Lorraine,  and  certainly  the  bankruptcy  of  the  world-polit- 
ical position  of  German  militarism.  But  this  would  mean  the 
disintegration  of  Austria-Hungary  and  the  total  liquidation  of 
Turkey.  Reactionary  as  both  of  these  states  are,  and  much  as 
their  disintegration  would  be  in  line  with  the  demands  of  pro- 
gressive development,  in  the  present  world-political  milieu,  the 
disintegration  of  the  Hapsburg  Monarchy  and  the  liquidation  of 
Turkey  would  mean  the  bartering  of  their  peoples  to  the  highest 
bidder — Russia,  England,  France,  or  Italy.  This  enormous  re- 
division  of  the  world  and  shifting  of  the  balance  of  power  in  the 
Balkan  states  and  along  the  Mediterranean  would  be  followed 
inevitably  by  another  in  Asia :  the  liquidation  of  Persia  and  a 
redivision  of  China.  This  would  bring  the  English-Russian  as 
well  as  the  English-Japanese  conflict  into  the  foreground  of 
international  politics,  and  may  mean,  in  direct  connection  with 
the  liquidation  of  the  present  war,  a  new  world  war,  perhaps  for 
Constantinople ;  would  certainly  bring  it  about,  inescapably,  in  the 
immediate  future.  So  a  victory  on  this  side,  too,  would  lead  to 
new,  feverish  armaments  in  all  nations — defeated  Germany, 
of  course,  at  the  head — and  would  introduce  an  era  of  undivided 
rule  for  militarism  and  reaction  all  over  Europe,  with  a  new  war 
as  its  final  goal. 

So  the  proletariat,  should  it  attempt  to  cast  its  influence  into 
the  balance  on  one  side  or  the  other,  for  progress  or  democracy, 
viewing  the  world  policies  in  their  widest  application,  would  place 


THE  CRISIS  121 

itself  between  Scylla  and  Charybdis.  Under  the  circumstances 
the  question  of  victory  or  defeat  becomes,  for  theEuropean  work- 
ing class,  in  its  political,  exactly  as  in  its  economic  aspects,  a 
choice  between  two  beatings.  It  is,  therefore,  nothing  short  of  a 
dangerous  madness  for  the  French  Socialists  to  believe  that  they 
can  deal  a  death  blow  to  militarism  and  imperialism,  and  cleai 
the  road  for  peaceful  democracy,  by  overthrowing  Germany. 
Imperialism,  and  its  servant  militarism,  will  reappear  after  every 
victory  and  after  every  defeat  in  this  war.  There  can  be  but  one 
exception:  if  the  international  proletariat,  through  its  interven- 
tion, should  overthrow  all  previous  calculations. 

The  important  lesson  to  be  derived  by  the  proletariat  from  this 
war  is  the  one  unchanging  fact,  that  it  can  and  must  not  become 
the  uncritical  echo  of  the  "victory  and  defeat"  slogan,  neither  in 
Germany  nor  in  France,  neither  in  England  nor  in  Austria.  For 
it  is  a  slogan  that  has  reality  only  from  the  point  of  view  of  im- 
perialism, and  is  identical,  in  the  eyes  of  every  large  power,  with 
the  question:  gain  or  loss  of  world-political  power,  of  annexa- 
tions, of  colonies,  of  military  supremacy. 

For  the  European  proletariat  as  a  class,  victory  or  defeat  of 
either  of  the  two  war  groups  would  be  equally  disastrous.  For 
war  as  such,  whatever  its  military  outcome  may  be,  is  the  great- 
est conceivable  defeat  of  the  cause  of  the  European  proletariat. 
The  overthrow  of  war,  and  the  speedy  forcing  of  peace,  by  the 
international  revolutionary  action  of  the  proletariat,  alone  can 
bring  to  it  the  only  possible  victory.  And  this  victory,  alone,  can 
truly  rescue  Belgium,  can  bring  democracy  to  Europe. 

For  the  class-conscious  proletariat  to  identify  its  cause  with 
either  military  camp  is  an  untenable  position.  Does  that  mean 
that  the  proletarian  policies  of  the  present  day  demand  a  return 
to  thfe  "status  quo,"  that  we  have  no  plan  of  action  beyond  the 
fond  hope  that  everything  may  remain  as  it  was  before  the  war? 


122  THE  CRISIS 

The  existing  conditions  have  never  been  our  ideal,  they  have 
never  been  the  expression  of  the  self-determination  of  the  people. 
And  more,  the  former  conditions  cannot  be  reinstated,  even  if 
the  old  national  boundaries  should  remain  unchanged.  For  even 
before  its  formal  ending  this  war  has  brought  about  enormous 
changes,  in  mutual  recognition  of  one  another's  strength,  in  alli- 
ances, and  in  conflict.  It  has  sharply  revised  the  relations  of 
countries  to  one  another,  of  classes  within  society,  has  destroyed 
so  many  old  illusions  and  portents,  has  created  so  many  new 
forces  and  new  problems,  that  a  return  to  the  old  Europe  that 
existed  before  August  4,  1914,  is  as  impossible  as  the  return  to 
pre-revolutionary  conditions,  even  after  an  unsuccessful  revo- 
lution. The  proletariat  knows  no  going  back,  can  only  strive 
forward  and  onward,  for  a  goal  that  lies  beyond  even  the  most 
newly  created  conditions.  In  this  sense,  alone,  is  it  possible 
for  the  proletariat  to  oppose,  with  its  policy,  both  camps  in  the 
imperialistic  world  war. 

But  this  policy  cannot  concern-  itself  with  recipes  for  capitalist 
diplomacy  worked  out  individually  by  the  Social-Democratic 
parties,  or  even  together  in  international  conferences,  to  deter- 
mine how  capitalism  shall  declare  peace  in  order  to  assure  future 
eaceful  and  democratic  development.  All  demands  for  complete 
or  gradual  disarmament,  for  the  abolition  of  secret  diplomacy, 
for  the  dissolution  of  the  great  powers  into  smaller  national  en- 
tities, and  all  other  similar  propositions,  are  absolutely  Utopian 
so  long  as  capitalist  class  rule  remains  in  power.  For  capitalism, 
in  its  present  imperialistic  course,  to  dispense  with  present-day 
militarism,  with  secret  diplomacy,  with  the  centralization  of  many 
national  states,  is  so  impossible  that  these  postulates  might,  much 
more  consistently,  be  united  into  the  simple  demand  "abolition 
of  capitalist  class  society."  The  proletarian  movement  cannot 
reconquer  the  place  it  deserves  by  means  of  Utopian  advice  and 
projects  for  weakening,  taming,  or  quelling  imperialism  within 
capitalism  by  means  of  partial  reforms.    The  real  problem  that 


THE  CRISIS  123 

the  world  war  has  placed  before  the  Socialist  parties,  upon  whose 
solution  the  future  of  the  working  class  movement  depends,  is 
the  readiness  of  the  proletarian  masses  to  act  in  the  fight  against 
imperialism.  The  international  proletariat  suffers,  not  from  a 
dearth  of  postulates,  programs,  and  slogans,  but  from  a  lack  of 
deeds,  of  effective  resistance,  of  the  power  to  attack  imperialism 
at  the  decisive  moment,  just  in  times  of  war.  It  has  been  unable 
to  put  its  old  slogan,  war  against  war,  into  actual  practice.  Here 
is  the  Gordian  knot  of  the  proletarian  movement  and  of  its 
future. 

Imperialism,  with  all  its  brutal  policy  of  force,  with  the  inces- 
sant chain  of  social  catastrophe  that  it  itself  provokes,  is,  to  be 
sure,  a  historic  necessity  for  the  ruling  classes  of  the  present 
world.  Yet  nothing  could  be  more  detrimental  than  that  the  prol- 
etariat should  derive,  from  the  present  war,  the  slightest  hopr: 
or  illusion  of  the  possibility  of  an  idyllic  and  peaceful  develop- 
ment of  capitalism.  There  is  but  one  conclusion  that  the  prole- 
tariat can  draw  from  the  historic  necessity  of  imperialism.  To 
capitulate  before  imperialism  will  mean  to  live  forever  in  its 
shadow,  off  the  crumbs  that  fall  from  the  table  of  its  victories 

Historic  development  moves  in  contradictions,  and  for  every 
necessity  puts  its  opposite  into  the  world  as  well.  The  capital- 
ist state  of  society  is  doubtless  a  historic  necessity,  but  so  al.^o 
is  the  revolt  of  the  working  class  against  it.  Capital  is  a  historic 
necessity,  but  in  the  same  measure  is  its  grave  digger,  the  Socialist 
proletariat.  The  world  rule  of  imperialism  is  a  historic  necessity, 
but  likewise  its  overthrow  by  the  proletarian  international.  Side 
by  side  the  two  historic  necessities  exist,  in  constant  conflict  with 
each  other.  And  ours  is  the  necessity  of  Socialism.  Our  necessity 
receives  its  justification  with  the  moment  when  the  capitalist  class 
ceases  to  be  the  bearer  of  historic  progress,  when  it  becomes  a 
hindrance,  a  danger,  to  the  future  development  of  society.    That 


124  THE  CRISIS 

capitalism  has  reached  this  stage  the  present  world  war  has  re- 
vealed. 

CapitaHst  desire  for  imperiaHstic  expansion,  as  the  expression 
of  its  highest  maturity  in  the  last  period  of  its  life,  has  the  eco- 
nomic tendency  to  change  the  whole  world  into  capitalistically 
producing  nations,  to  sweep  away  all  superannuated,  precapi- 
talistic  methods  of  production  and  of  society,  to  subjugate  all  the 
riches  of  the  earth  and  all  means  of  production  to  capital,  to 
turn  the  laboring  masses  of  the  peoples  of  all  zones  into  ^vage 
slaves.  In  Africa  and  in  Asia,  from  the  most  northern  regions 
to  the  southernmost  point  of  South  America  and  in  the  South 
Seas,  the  remnants  of  old  communistic  social  groups,  of  feuial 
society,  of  patriarchal  systems,  and  of  ancient  handicraft  produc- 
tion are  destroyed  and  stamped  out  by  capitalism.  Whole  peo- 
ples are  destroyed,  ancient  civilizations  are  leveled  to  the  ground, 
and  in  their  place  profiteering  in  its  most  modern  forms  is  being 
established.  ,This  brutal  triumphal  procession  of  capitalism 
through  the  world,  accompanied  by  all  the  means  of  force,  of 
robbery,  and  of  infamy,  has  one  bright  phase:  It  has  created 
the  premises  for  its  own  final  overthrow,  it  has  established  the 
capitalist  world  rule  upon  which,  alone,  the  Socialist  world  revo- 
lution can  follow.  This  is  the  only  cultural  and  progressive 
aspect  of  the  great  so-called  works  of  culture  that  were  brought 
to  the  primitive  countries.  To  capitalist  economists  and  politi- 
cians railroads,  matches,  sewerage  systems  and  warehouses  are 
progress  and  culture.  Of  themselves  such  works,  grafted  upon 
primitive  conditions,  are  neither  culture  nor  progress,  for  they 
are  too  dearly  paid  for  with  the  sudden  economic  and  cultural 
ruin  of  the  peoples  who  must  drink  down  the  bitter  cup  of  mis- 
ery and  horror  of  two  social  orders,  of  traditional  agricultural 
landlordism,  of  supermodern,  superrefined  capitalist  exploitation, 
at  one  and  the  same  time.  Only  as  the  material  conditions  for 
the  destruction  of  capitalism  and  the  abolition  of  class  society 


THE  CRISIS  125 

can  the  effects  of  the  capitalist  triumphal  march  through  the 
world  bear  the  stamp  of  progress  in  an  historical  sense.  In  this 
sense  imperialism,  too,  is  working  in  our  interest. 

The  present  world  war  is  a  turning  point  in  the  course  of  im- 
perialism. For  the  first  time  the  destructive  beasts  that  have 
been  loosed  by  capitalist  Europe  over  all  other  parts  of  the  world 
have  sprung  with  one  awful  leap,  into  the  midst  of  the  Euro- 
pean nations.  A  cry  of  horror  went  up  through  the  world  when 
Belgium,  that  priceless  little  jewel  of  European  culture,  when 
the  venerable  monuments  of  art  in  northern  France,  fell  into 
fragments  before  the  onslaughts  of  a  blind  and  destructive  force. 
The  "civilized  world"  that  had  stood  calmly  by  when  this  same 
imperialism  doomed  tens  of  thousands  of  heroes  to  destruction, 
when  the  desert  of  Kalahari  shuddered  with  the  insane  cry  of 
the  thirsty  and  the  rattling  breath  of  the  dying,  when  in  Putu- 
mayo,  within  ten  years,  forty  thousand  human  beings  were  tor- 
tured to  death  by  a  band  of  European  industrial  robber-barons, 
and  the  remnants  of  a  whole  people  were  beaten  into  cripples, 
when  in  China  an  ancient  civilization  was  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  destruction  and  anarchy,  with  fire  and  slaughter,  by  the 
European  soldiery,  when  Persia  gasped  in  the  noose  of  the 
foreign  rule  of  force  that  closed  inexorably  about  her  throat,  when 
in  Tripoli  the  Arabs  were  mowed  down,  with  fire  and  sword, 
under  the  yoke  of  capital,  while  their  civilization  and  their  homes 
were  razed  to  the  ground — this  civilized  world  has  just  begun  to 
know  that  the  fangs  of  the  imperialist  beast  are  deadly,  that  its 
breath  is  frightfulness,  that  its  tearing  claws  have  sunk  deep  into 
the  breasts  of  its  own  mother,  European  culture.  And  this  be- 
lated recognition  is  coming  into  the  world  of  Europe  in  the  dis- 
torted form  of  bourgeois  hypocrisy,  that  leads  each  nation  to 
recognize  infamy  only  when  it  appears  in  the  uniform  of  the 
other.  They  speak  of  German  barbarism,  as  if  every  people  that 
goes  out  for  organized  murder  did  not  change  into  a  horde  of 
barbarians!     They  speak  of  Cossack  horrors,  as  if  war  itself 


126  THE  CRISIS 

were  not  the  the  greatest  of  all  horrors,  as  if  the  praise  of  human 
slaughter  in  a  Socialist  periodical  were  not  mental  Cossackdom 
in  its  very  essence. 

But  the  horrors  of  imperialist  bestiality  in  Europe  have  had 
another  effect,  that  has  brought  to  the  "civilized  world"  no 
horror-stricken  eyes,  no  agoniz.ed  heart.  It  is  the  mass  destruc- 
tion of  the  European  proletariat.  Never  has  a  war  killed  off 
whole  nations;  never,  within  the  past  century,  has  it  swept  over 
all  of  the  great  and  established  lands  of  civilized  Europe.  Millions 
of  human  lives  were  destroyed  in  the  Vosges,  in  the  Ardennes,  in 
Belgium,  in  Poland,  in  the  Carpathians  and  on  the  Save ;  millions 
have  been  hopelessly  crippled.  But  nine-tenths  of  these  millions 
come  from  the  ranks  of  the  working  class  of  the  cities  and  the 
farms.  It  is  our  strength,  our  hope  that  was  mowed  down  there, 
day  after  day,  before  the  scythe  of  death.  They  were  the  best,  the 
most  intelligent,  the  most  thoroughly  schooled  forces  of  inter- 
national socialism,  the  bearers  of  the  holiest  traditions,  of  the 
highest  heroism,  the  modern  labor  movement,  the  vanguard  of 
the  whole  world  proletariat,  the  workers  of  England,  France, 
Belgium,  Germany  and  Russia  who  are  being  gagged  and 
butchered  in  masses.  Only  from  Europe,  only  from  the  oldest 
capitalist  nations,  when  the  hour  is  ripe,  can  the  signal  come  for 
the  social  revolution  that  will  free  the  nations.  Only  the  Eng- 
lish, the  French,  the  Belgian,  the  German,  the  Russian,  the  Italian 
workers,  together,  can  lead  the  army  of  the  exploited  and  op- 
pressed. And  when  the  time  comes  they  alone  can  call  capitalism 
to  account  for  centuries  of  crime  committed  against,  primitive 
peoples;  they  alone  can  avenge  its  work  of  destruction  over  a 
whole  world.  But  for  the  advance  and  victory  of  Socialism  we 
need  a  strong,  educated,  ready  proletariat,  masses  whose  strength 
lies  in  knowledge  as  well  as  in  numbers.  And  these  very  masses 
are  being  decimated  all  over  the  world.  The  flower  of  our  youth- 
ful strength,  hundreds  of  thousands  whose  socialist  education  in 
England,  in  France,  in  Belgium,  in  Germany  and  in  Russia  was 


THE  CRISIS  127 

the  product  of  decades  of  education  and  propaganda,  other 
hundreds  of  thousands  who  were  ready  to  receive  the  lessons  of 
Socialism,  have  fallen,  and  are  rotting  upon  the  battlefields.  The 
fruit  of  the  sacrifices  and  toil  of  generations  is  destroyed  in  a 
few  short  weeks,  the  choicest  troops  of  the  international  prole- 
tariat are  torn  out  by  the  life  roots. 

The  blood-letting  of  the  June  battle  laid  low  the  French  labor 
movement  for  a  decade  and  a  half.  The .  blood-letting  of  the 
Commune  massacre  again  threw  it  back  for  more  than  a  decade. 
What  is  happening  now  is  a  massacre  such  as  the  world  has  never 
seen  before,  that  is  reducing  the  laboring  population  in  all  of  the 
leading  nations  to  the  aged,  the  women  and  the  maimed;  a 
blood-letting  that  threatens  to  bleed  white  the  European  labor 
movement. 

Another  such  war,  and  the  hope  of  Socialism  will  be  buried 
under  the  ruins  of  imperialistic  barbarism.  That  is  more  than 
the  ruthless  destruction  of  Liege  and  of  the  Rheims  Cathedral. 
That  is  a  blow,  not  against  capitalist  civilization  of  the  past,  but 
against  Socialist  civilization  of  the  future,  a  deadly  blow  against 
the  force  that  carries  the  future  of  mankind  in  its  womb,  that 
alone  can  rescue  the  precious  treasures  of  the  past  over  into  a 
better  state  of  society.  Here  capitalism  reveals  its  death's  head, 
here  it  betrays  that  it  has  sacrificed  its  historic  right  of  existence, 
that  its  rule  is  no  longer  compatible  with  the  progress  of 
humanity. 

But  here  is  proof  also  that  the  war  is  not  only  a  grandiose 
murder,  but  the  suicide  of  the  European  working  class.  The 
soldiers  of  socialism,  the  workers  of  England,  of  France,  of 
Germany,  of  Italy,  of  Belgium  are  murdering  each  other  at  the 
bidding  of  capitalism,  are  thrusting  cold,  murderous  irons  into 
each  others'  breasts,  are  tottering  over  their  graves,  grappling  in 
each  others'  death-bringing  arms. 


128  THE  CRISIS 

"Deutschland,  Deutschland  iiber  alles/'  "long  live  democracy," 
"long  live  the  czar  and  slavery,"  "ten  thousand  tent  cloths, 
guaranteed  according  to  specifications,"  "hundred  thousand 
pounds  of  bacon,"  "coffee  substitute,  immediate  delivery"  .  .  . 
dividends  are  rising — proletarians  falling;  and  with  each  one 
there  sinks  a  fighter  of  the  future,  a  soldier  of  the  revolution, 
a  savior  of  humanity  from  the  yoke  of  capitalism,  into  the  grave. 

This  madness  will  not  stop,  and  this  bloody  nightmare  of  hell 
will  not  cease  until  the  workers  of  Germany,  of  France,  of  Russia 
and  of  England  will  wake  up  out  of  their  drunken  sleep;  will 
clasp  each  other's  hands  in  brotherhood  and  will  drown  the  bestial, 
chorus  of  war  agitators  and  the  hoarse  cry  of  capitalist  hyenas 
with  the  mighty  cry  of  labor,  "Proletarians  of  all  countries, 
unite !" 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FAOLlTv 


A    000  617  592 


\  /     /   '^  '^'S  ^         THE  LIBRARY 
/(^^Ij  0       UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


50  3    l]p-9     9     16.  I 


Series  9482 


